Other media type related things

In writing the application/soap+xml media type registration, I've
identified some required additions to the specification (part 2,
HTTP binding) about its use.

1.  Differing SOAPAction & "action" parameter

It's unclear that we need to say anything if these values differ,
because the meaning of their values is so vague.  We could say that
processors requiring SOAPAction MAY return "SOAPAction required" (427)
if they differ, and would have to document this in the meaning of
SOAPAction because it changes its meaning.

2.  Differing envelope namespace & "envelope" parameter

(assuming we keep it)

A recipient of such a SOAP message MUST send a VersionMismatch
fault.

3.  Use of application/soap+xml

We have to decide whether we require SOAP messages to be described
with only this type, or permit alternate types to be used (such as
application/xml).  Here are some pros and cons;

Pro to allowing other types;
- when the "how do media types and XML namespaces relate?" question
is answered, we would expect to be able to more easily migrate to that
solution (assuming it requires using a different media type than the
SOAP one)
- future extensibility would be improved
- probably couldn't prevent other types being used anyway, so it isn't
a good idea to assume it.

Con to allowing other types;
- more difficult to identify an XML SOAP message

I propose we allow other media types.

MB

Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 12:20:00 UTC