> In the spec, it says, if we have our own custom content-type, then it >> should be compatible with application/xml ( >> http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20-adjuncts/#_http_ser_xml). >> > > I don't think that thats the case. The WSDL 2.0 spec specifies three > serializations, they are > application/x-www-form-urlencoded<http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20-adjuncts/#_http_x-www-form-urlencoded>, > application/xml<http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20-adjuncts/#_http_operation_xml_encoding>and > multipart/form-data<http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20-adjuncts/#_http_operation_multipart_encoding>. > And the area in the spec you have referred to is talking about these three. > I the section you have referred to the spec says, > > "[Definition: The *serialization format* is a media type token > ("type/subtype"). It identifies rules to serialize the payload in an HTTP > message. Its value is defined by the following rules. The HTTP request > serialization format MUST be in the media type range specified by the {http > input > serialization<http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20-adjuncts/#property-BindingOperation.httpinputserialization>} > property. " > > So it basically supports any media-Type. Its just that the working group > took the trouble in describing the three serializations above in detail. >
Ok agreed. I was wrong in interpreting it. I guess some one who was working in the HTTP binding can clarify this (IIRC, Dr. Sanjiva was there :D) Thanks for the clarification, Keith. Thanks, Chinthaka
