- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:13:29 +0100
- To: "'christopher ferris'" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
I don't have a strong view on this issue. I am somewhat taken with the view that the content-type for a SOAP message is "application/xml" or "text/xml". I was wondering if there would be anything too awful about creating a new MIME/HTTP header for use in conjuction with content-types of "*/xml" called "Root-Element-Name" which encoded the fully qualified element name of the document's root element. Coarse dispatching could be done on "content-type" and fine-gran dispatching at some meta-XML processor done on "Root-ElementName". This would avoid overloading 'content-type', it would be generic and decentralised for XML documents of all kinds. I don't think that we want to go 'sub-typing' XML documents below the fully qualified name of the root element... it would get ugly to do that! Just a thought... there are probably reasons why this is not a good idea. Regards Stuart > -----Original Message----- > From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com] > Sent: 19 September 2001 12:49 > To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen > Cc: christopher ferris; Mark Nottingham; Jacek Kopecky; > xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Re: text/xml for SOAP is incorrect > > > Henrik, > > Certainly you agree that SOAP is it's own thing. > It just happens to also be XML. SOAP has its own process > model. Why the resistance to a soap-specific > media type? Certainly seems mostly harmless to me. > > Cheers, > > Chris > > Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > > > >Sure, why not? You can reflect the SOAP version in a MIME > > >"version" parameter on the Content-Type header. Dispatchers > > >can choose whether to use this (or not) as they see fit. A > > >SOAP processor can make the determination as to support of the > > >namespace by inspecting the namespace and further dispatching > > >as needed (or loading the right modules, schema, whatever). > > > > How is this different from regular XML processing to the > degree that it > > requires a special content type? > > > > Henrik >
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 09:13:45 UTC