Comments on:

With reference to:

On a quick read-through, I have a couple of comments:


Section 1.2:
text/xml for root multipart/related element

The choice of a text/... MIME type for this purpose seems rather, er, 
perverse to me.  The intent of text/... MIME types is for data content that 
can reasonably be read as such by a human user [1].  text/html is regarded 
by at least one of MIME's designers as a mistake [2].  I really don't think 
that an XML SOAP envelope falls into the category of human-readable 
text.  I suggest:
(a) use application/xml, or
(b) register a new application/...+xml MIME type for this purpose.

I see in section 5 you describe application/soap_xop+xml, so I guess that's 
just a typo in the examples?


Section 5:

Looking at:
For example, if the format identified by "application/soap+xml" is to be 
packaged as XOP serializations, then a XOP-specific media type (e.g., 
"application/soap_xop+xml") MUST be registered. A XOP Package using the 
Multipart/Related packaging mechanism and serializing such an Infoset would 
have a package media type of "multipart/related" and a root media type of 

This seems a bit awkward to me.  Has any consideration been given to 
defining a single MIME content-type, say application/xop+xml, having a 
parameter to specify the original MIME type; hence:

Among other things, I think this would make it easier to implement a 
completely generic XOP serializer/deserializer since no special knowledge 
of any specific MIME type (other than application/xop+xml) would be required.


B.1 References:

The reference to RFC 2557 mis-spells one of the authors' name (J Palme).


[1], section 3


Graham Klyne
For email:

Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2004 06:47:45 UTC