[This message was posted by Russell Curry of Assimilate Technology, Inc. <[email protected]> to the "General Q/A" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/22. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/0f858bbd - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
> Mahesh - thanks for raising this issue again - I had forgotten this > discussion. > > I think the best way to communicate FIXML over FIX is to use > FIXT.1.1 and use the XML_non_FIX (unfortunately named message) > MsgType(tag 35)='n'. > > FIXT.1.1 is ideal for sending non-FIX or company proprietary messages - > I don't know why we haven't been selling this concept more. > > With FIXT.1.1 since there is a separation between session and > application layer - an application protocol for FIXML payload could be > defined that would not include any FIX tags whatsoever - and list the > MsgType enumerations for the FIXML messages being transmitted. > > I see the value of FIXT.1.1 being outside of FIX not when used with FIX > tag=value application versions. Hi Jim, I was also wondering a little about this - does it make sense to put a little effort into developing a more formal approach for transferring non-FIX data over FIXT? I was thinking something along the lines of mime types - it might make sense to register the different protocol types with IANA and then use a standard mime/content header in the payload... Thoughts? Cheers, Russ [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:[email protected]] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fix-protocol?hl=en.
