- From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 16:21:34 -0700
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <C3729BBB6099B344834634EC67DE4AE102623B0E@red-msg-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
But see the SOAP with Attachments specification.[1] There are good reasons to rapidly dispatch, but as this spec shows, there are also good reasons to use MIME multipart. For example, ebXML uses it. I believe that one of the motivations of the SOAPAction HTTP header was to allow the rapid dispatch without sacrificing MIME multipart. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments -----Original Message----- From: Mike Dierken [mailto:mike@DataChannel.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:53 PM To: Andrew Layman; xml-dist-app@w3.org Cc: dave@scripting.com Subject: RE: text/xml for SOAP is incorrect > Another question, which may have been addressed in a message I > overlooked, but what if a SOAP message per the application/soap+xml > proposal were contained in a MIME multipart structure? In this case, > the top-level MIME type would make no mention of SOAP (or would it? > How?) If so, how would a processor of the message make the > correct and > rapid messing-with or dispatching decisions? If the MIME 'envelope' (outer content-type in multipart/related) isn't SOAP the the message isn't SOAP. If intermediaries are built to look at portions of a message, they have to scan the stream... (which is pretty efficient with a Boyer-Moore algorithm.) mike
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 19:24:04 UTC