- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:13:01 -0400
- To: Laird Popkin <laird@io.com>
- Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, Grahame Grieve <grahame@kestral.com.au>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 10:26:20AM -0400, Laird Popkin wrote: > 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., ... I don't understand. A key value of SOAP is the processing model. Are you suggesting that application/foo+soap+xml types would not follow it? > the same reasons that SOAP doesn't simply use "application/xml"), though the I think the reasons are very different. "application/xml" doesn't mean anything. It's like sending HTML as text/plain. > implication is that SOAP processors would have to accept > "application/*soap_xml"... Initial reaction; ick. 8-) Is there something special about ICE that suggested this would be useful thing to do? FWIW, application/soap+xml is just used by the default binding. Other HTTP bindings could be defined that didn't use it. MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 11:01:15 UTC