RE: MIME Envelope Optional?

[Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>]

Bob,

> > I did not here any discussion in Vancouver whether the MIME
> envelope might
> > be optional in cases where the message payload contained only
> XML syntax.
> > It seems logical to me that the MIME envelope would be optional in such
> > cases.
> >

HTTP requires that all packages contain certain MIME headers, such as
content
type. There is no escaping MIME when operating over HTTP.

I think the majority of e-mail programs are also MIME aware.

Dick Brooks
Group 8760
110 12th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
dick@8760.com
205-250-8053
Fax: 205-250-8057
http://www.8760.com/

InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cferris@xtacy.East.Sun.COM [mailto:cferris@xtacy.East.Sun.COM]On
> Behalf Of christopher ferris
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 1:16 PM
> To: Miller, Robert (GXS)
> Cc: ebXML Transport Mailing List
> Subject: Re: MIME Envelope Optional?
>
>
> "Miller, Robert (GXS)" wrote:
> >
> > I did not here any discussion in Vancouver whether the MIME
> envelope might
> > be optional in cases where the message payload contained only
> XML syntax.
> > It seems logical to me that the MIME envelope would be optional in such
> > cases.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >         Bob
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org
>
> If we disallow any "payload" in the SOAP-ENV:Body element, as has been
> suggested and eloquently argued, then this would never be the case.
>
> However, an acknowledgment, error (SOAP:Fault) or StatusData message
> which have no business "payload" *could* be sent absent the MIME
> packaging. Now the question becomes, is this what we want?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>