- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 15:23:29 -0700
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>, christopher ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 03:09:22PM -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > >This presupposes the necessity of reflecting the message's > >namespaces in the content-type; why is this necessary? > > Well, isn't this how we have defined a mechanism for identifying > SOAP -- by the use of a specific XML Namespace identifier? It's a mechanism for identifying in the context of XML; i.e., by an XML processor. Not necessarily by a MIME processor. > If the content type is related to SOAP in any way then I think > there is an inherent link between whatever the content type is and > the URI that we pick for indicating that this is SOAP. The problem is that URIs are opaque, and when used as a namespace, they are typically used for both versioning and identification. Most uses of content-type do not include versioniong, but are only scoped as a format identification mechanism. > In this context, what does a shortname even mean? Do we expect > "application/soap+xml" to point to any SOAP including SOAP 1.1, > SOAP 1.2, and beyond? Current practice seems to indicate so. I think most people here will acknowledge that content-type has limitations, some of them severe. However, if we step back and limit the discussion to 'what content-type is typically used for, and therefore what should our content-type be?', rather than overloading it 'what content-type should be/could be capable of', I think the answer is fairly simple. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2001 18:23:54 UTC