Re: text/xml for SOAP is incorrect

Henrik,

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> 
> >> 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?

That might be adequate, certainly more accurate than
text/xml, but I think that application/soap+xml
would be better. 

> 
> >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