- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 07:44:14 -0400
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jacek, Good point (should never respond to email past 10 pm:) Looking it over, I now see SOAP encoding whereas I inferred "SOAP envelope" last night. Unless the SOAP encoded document is wrapped in a SOAP envelope then application/soap+xml would indeed be inappropriate. 'application/xml' would probably be better suited. Thanks for catching that oversight. Cheers, Chris Jacek Kopecky wrote: > Dan, > I don't think application/soap+xml is appropriate because this > is used to type a document containing SOAP Envelope. > If it is important, the WG might want to create a MIME type for > SOAP Encoding documents, otherwise I think application/xml should > be used. > Best regards, > > Jacek Kopecky > > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Dan Brickley wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > I have a document I'd like to make experimentally available in RDF, XHTML > > and SOAP Encoding format. Can someone recommend a mimetype for the latter, > > so I can make all three versions available from the same URI via HTTP > > content negotiation? > > > > Thanks for any suggestions, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 07:46:02 UTC