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

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

From: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:05:44 -0800
Message-ID: <3A770278.6070804@netscape.com>
To: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
"Sometimes use mime" artificially segregates messages into different 
protocols that do not work in the same pipes, the same intermediaries, 
etc.  So much for defining SOAP as a standard plumbing for routing 
XML-based requests over HTTP.  Fortunately, there are non-SOAP solutions 
that don't have these limitations.

When we need to use MIME so we can send XML, binaries, and other things 
that SOAP does not encapsulate well, remind us of the advantages of 
having a SOAP envelope inside of it too.  We already now have an 
envelope now that works better than SOAP for encapsulating orthogonal parts.

Ray Whitmer
rayw@netscape.com

Andrew Layman wrote:

> 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 12:54:39 GMT

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