- From: Costello,Roger L. <COSTELLO@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:34:03 -0400
- 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 UTC