W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2003

RE: Opaque data, XML, and SOAP

From: Laird A Popkin <laird@io.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:35:36 -0600 (CST)
To: Eugene Kuznetsov <eugene@datapower.com>
cc: "'Elliotte Rusty Harold'" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, <ice-dev@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303111427020.12173-100000@eris.io.com>

You're right -- "shouldn't" rather than "couldn't". Thanks!

And I agree that we should pick a small number of standard ways of solving 
this, for interoperability. I'd suggest one in-band and one by-reference, 
since there are cases where either are operationally appropriate (e.g. you 
don't want to in-line encode a 700 MB movie).

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Eugene Kuznetsov wrote:

> > The point of all of this is that since there are many fairly 
> > simple mechanisms for handling binary data in XML messages, 
> > and they've been in widespread production for a couple of 
> > years now, so I can't agree with the  assertion that XML 
> > can't be used with binary data.
> 
> I think Eliotte is saying that it *shouldnt* be used with binary data,
> not that it can't be. 
> 
> To take the risk of summarizing the other position: since XML will be
> used with binary data (wrong or right), let's agree on one or two ways
> of doing it -- rather than 20. 
> 
> 
> \\ Eugene Kuznetsov
> \\ eugene@datapower.com
> \\ DataPower Technology, Inc.
> \\ http://www.datapower.com - XS40 XML Security Gateway
> 
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 16:34:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:13 GMT