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

Re: XOP compatible with SOAP 1.1 processors?

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:49:40 -0700
Message-Id: <79D53D13-1CB3-4235-A08F-4DA0457C99E1@bea.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
To: "Costello,Roger L." <COSTELLO@mitre.org>

Roger,

On 19/08/2005, at 8:34 AM, Costello,Roger L. wrote:

> 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?

XOP is a generic, alternate serialisation of the XML Infoset. MTOM is  
the binding of XOP into SOAP 1.2. To use XOP in SOAP 1.1, you'd need  
something similar to MTOM for it. There isn't any technical barrier,  
it's just a matter of getting it specified.

> 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?

Pretty much, although you can use SwA with an XML file as well. The  
WG decided to keep XOP base64Binary-only to keep it simple.

> 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?

They probably won't get good interop on that.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Friday, 19 August 2005 17:49:57 GMT

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