Re: Issue 470: identifying XOP packages (proposal)

At 16:09 27/07/04 -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>Below, I've made such a proposal for changes to the XOP specification. In 
>doing so, I note that there is one disadvantage to the over the current 
>approach; it does not accommodate the "action" parameter on the XOP 
>Document's media type; that is, there is no place to convey this 
>information in the MIME package.

>I can think of a few ways around this;
>   1) We could decide that this information is not important (even in the 
> current approach, this information is hidden in the root part; it's not 
> available at the top level)
>   2) We could allow other parameters to magically "show through" the XOP 
> media type
>   3) We could stay with the current approach of requiring every 
> application to register a XOP media type.

I'm not sure if I fully understand the problem here:  I think you're 
suggesting that the SOAP action cannot be made visible through the XOP 
media type because it's no longer specific to (has specific knowledge of) 
the SOAP envelope?  If so...

Would it not be appropriate to define some kind of additional parameter on 
the XOP media type that operates in (roughly) similar fashion to start-info 
for multipart/related?  Possibly with the additional proviso that 
interpretation of this parameter is dependent on the value of the type 
parameter.

This might lead to something like:
[[
Content-type: application/xop+xml; charset=UTF-8;
   type="application/soap+xml"
   info="action=..."
]]

>#2 is the most expedient, but I'm not sure it's good practice.

I think the above suggestion may be a more explicit way to achieve this

[...]

>* Section 1.2 Example
>In Example 2, change:
>[[[Content-Type: Multipart/Related;boundary=MIME_boundary;
>
>type=application/soap_xop+xml;start="<mymessage.xml@example.org>"]]]
>to:
>[[[Content-Type: multipart/related;boundry=MIME_boundary;
> 
>type="application/xop+xml";start="mymessage.xml@example.org>";
>                 startinfo="application/soap+xml"]]]
>
>Change:
>[[[Content-Type: application/soap_xop+xml; charset=UTF-8]]]
>to:
>[[[Content-type: application/xop+xml; charset=UTF-8; 
>type="application/soap+xml"]]]
>
>* Section 3.1 Creating XOP Packages
>In bullet 5, change "appropriate XOP-specific media type" to 
>"application/xop+xml media type"
>
>* Section 4.1 MIME Multipart/Related XOP Packages
>Replace the second paragraph with:
>"""The root MIME part is the root of the XOP Package, and MUST be a 
>serialisation of the XOP Infoset using any W3C Recommendation-level 
>version of XML (e.g., [XML 1.0], [XML 1.1]), and MUST be identified with a 
>media type of "application/xop+xml" (as defined below). The "start-info" 
>parameter of the package's media type MUST contain the media type 
>associated with the content's XML serialisation (i.e., it will contain the 
>same value as that of the root part's "type" parameter)."""
>
>* Section 5 Identifying XOP Packages
>Replace the section with: """
>XOP Documents, when used in MIME-like systems, are identified with the 
>"application/xop+xml" media type, with the required "type" parameter 
>conveying the original XML serialisation's associated media type.
>
>For example, a XOP Package using MIME Multipart/Related packaging to 
>seralize a SOAP 1.2 message [SOAP1.2] would label the package itself with 
>the "multipart/related" media type, and the root part with the 
>"application/xop+xml" media type, along with a "type" parameter containing 
>"application/soap+xml".

I had a little difficulty parsing that last sentence.  It wasn't 
immediately clear to me that the "type" parameter was belonging to the 
"application/xop+xml" content-type.  Suggest minor re-wording:
[[
For example, a XOP Package using MIME Multipart/Related packaging to 
serialize a SOAP 1.2 message [SOAP1.2] would label the package itself with 
the "multipart/related" media type;  the root part media type is 
"application/xop+xml" with "type" parameter "application/soap+xml".
]]

(also typo "seralize")

[...]

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact

Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 05:31:09 UTC