- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 15:33:27 -0700
- To: "Jeffrey Kay" <jkay@ENGENIA.COM>, <dick@8760.com>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>I'd agree that text/xml would be really hard to distinguish >SOAP messages from others without processing the XML directly. > I'd be more in favor of a text/xml-soap or >application/xml-protocol or something like that to clearly >identify the kind of XML involved. It's not a perfect >solution, but it solves the "signal" problem without having to >resort to another header. Another thought might be to use >something like: > > Content-Type: text/xml; format=xml-protocol > >This would have the same signal effect as SOAPAction, but >without the extra header value. But it doesn't really - there are two parts to the SOAPAction fields - the fact that it is a SOAP message (which at the end of the day doesn't say much of anything) and then there is the hint which is administrated in a decentralized manner. Btw, there is an RFC on XML and media types - it's RFC 3023 Henrik
Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 19:18:59 UTC