Re: text/xml vs. application/soap

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.

Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.     

Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 11:01:15 UTC