W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2001

RE: Binary attachments to XP: or unipart vs. multipart

From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:36:12 -0800
Message-ID: <C3729BBB6099B344834634EC67DE4AE1349035@red-msg-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Adding to what Frank de Rose said, we might consider the SOAP with
Attachements approach as a distinct binding of the SOAP protocol to
MIME, much as the SOAP 1.1 specification defines a binding of SOAP to
HTTP.  This would permit enclosure of a SOAP message within a MIME
structure for those cases where such enclosure is advantageous. 

Another way to look at this suggestion is that "always use MIME" versus
"never use MIME" is a false alternative.  One might _sometimes_ use MIME
(when its advantages outweigh its drawbacks).  With some care, the use
of MIME can be applied to the SOAP specification without requiring a
change to the SOAP specification itself.  The SOAP with Attachments
specification is a suggested approach. 
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2001 11:00:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:58 GMT