- From: Laird Popkin <laird@io.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 10:26:20 -0400
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, Grahame Grieve <grahame@kestral.com.au>
- CC: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
What do people here think about the idea of extending this MIME type when applications are layered over SOAP, the same way that SOAP is layered over XML? For example, "application/ice+soap+xml" rather than "application/soap+xml". It'd have some advantages (i.e. you could manage messages by application without having to parse the SOAP message, etc., ... the same reasons that SOAP doesn't simply use "application/xml"), though the implication is that SOAP processors would have to accept "application/*soap_xml"... On 7/18/2002 11:12, "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com> wrote: > > Grahame, > it's application/soap+xml (note the added +xml). > Anyway, this MIME type is used in SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding, whereas > the SOAP 1.1 HTTP binding uses text/xml. Therefore SOAP 1.1 nodes > (the prevalent ones now) accept text/xml. The SOAP 1.2 aware > nodes shall accept application/soap+xml. > Best regards, > > Jacek Kopecky > > Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Grahame Grieve wrote: > >> >> The current specification says that the MimeType for SOAP/HTTP should >> be application/soap >> >> I haven't yet found a production SOAP service that uses application/soap, >> they all use text/xml. Many barf, often with no explanation, when the >> mime type is application/soap (I've just been playing with the >> Sun Forte Soap kit on Tomcat and it does - not sure whether mine >> was a current version) >> >> I'm interested in opinions here - what should a SOAP library >> do about this? Is there any way to tell whether a service >> expects text/xml or application/soap >> >> ta >> >> Grahame >> > --
Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 10:26:23 UTC