Re: XOP compatible with SOAP 1.1 processors?

Costello,Roger L. wrote:
> 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"/>
>  

Please see the Attachment Profile (AP) 1.0 [1] from WS-I which profiles 
SOAP 1.1, WSDL 1.1 and SwA. AP 1.0 defines a new XML schema simple type 
swaRef which is meant to reference a MIME part in the same MIME package.

-Anish
--

[1] http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/AttachmentsProfile-1.0-2004-08-24.html

> 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
>