W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2005

XOP compatible with SOAP 1.1 processors?

From: Costello,Roger L. <COSTELLO@mitre.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:34:03 -0400
Message-ID: <827BC324B431954A855DC4E39E71B0284636E3@IMCSRV5.MITRE.ORG>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Hi Folks,
 
I am looking at the two technologies that have been created to enable
bundling a SOAP document with non-XML stuff (e.g., binary files):
 
- SOAP 1.1 provides "SOAP with Attachments"
 
- SOAP 1.2 provides "XOP" (and the ancillary technologies XMLMIME and
MTOM)
 
Here's how I interpret these two technologies, in a nutshell:
 
1. Both require that the SOAP message and the non-XML stuff be bundled
in a MIME multipart package.
 
2. SOAP 1.1 provides no standard XML tag for use in referencing, within
the SOAP message, the non-XML stuff.  For example, your SOAP message
could reference the non-XML stuff like this:
 
     <foobar href="stuff"/>
 
3. SOAP 1.2, on the other hand, provides a standard XML tag for use in
referencing the non-XML stuff, i.e.,
 
     <xop:Include href="stuff"/>
 
Questions:
 
a. Since SOAP 1.1 doesn't care what XML tag is used, then I might as
well just use the standard XOP Include tag, right?  That way, I can use
a SOAP 1.1 processor, but take advantage of a SOAP 1.2 capability.  Or,
is XOP somehow incompatible with SOAP 1.1 processors?
 
b. XOP seems to be usable only with base64Binary data, whereas my
impression is that SOAP with attachments is general purpose (i.e., the
attachment can be any non-XML file, not just base64Binary data).  Is
this a correct statement?  
 
c. Would it be reasonable for me to make this recommendation to my
clients: when using SOAP 1.1 and the attachment is a base64Binary file
then use the standard XOP Include tag to reference the (base64Binary)
attachment?
 
Thanks.  /Roger
Received on Friday, 19 August 2005 15:34:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:20 GMT