- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 15:53:25 -0700
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@idoox.com>, "christopher ferris" <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>> 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. Right, but then why isn't application/xml sufficient? >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. I don't actually think this is the issue but whenever somebody wants to establish a central registry--especially for things that a *lot* of design work has gone into avoiding central registration, like is the case for URIs and XML namespaces, I think there should be a really good reason for doing so. To be quite frank I don't see that in RFC 3023. Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2001 18:55:34 UTC