- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 13:09:50 -0700
- To: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1 (again...) I don't think there's an issue against content-type, but there should be. Probably needs to be registered in the same breath as we register http headers, etc... On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 12:20:03PM -0400, christopher ferris wrote: > +1 to application/soap+xml > > Mark Baker wrote: > > > > Murata-san, > > > > > Dear the XML Protocol WG, > > > > > > As a co-author of RFC 3023 (XML Media Types), I repeat my claim. Use > > > of text/xml for SOAP is incorrect. Please use application/xml, > > > instead. > > > > I assume you're primarily suggesting that text/xml not be used, not that > > application/xml should be used. I personally believe that > > application/soap+xml is the best choice as it; > > > > - helps with the migration to application/xml once it can be assumed > > that XML processors dispatch on namespaces (see RFC 3023, last > > paragraph in Sec 3). > > - provides a syntactically cleaner place for holding information > > previously conveyed via SOAPAction (a parameter on the media type, > > which can't be done to application/xml without updating 3023) > > > > Thanks for bringing this up again, it's an important point. > > > > MB > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2001 16:10:52 UTC