W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2000

XML protocol comparisons

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:17:08 -0500
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20000329201708.F334@w3.org>
I put together a comparison of a bunch of XML protocols, 

SOAP [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#SOAP]
ICE [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#ICE]
WDDX [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#WDDX]
BizTalk [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#BizTalk]
IOTP [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#IOTP]
TIP [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#TIP]
WfXML [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#WfXML]
ebXML [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#ebXML]
XMI [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#XMI]

for everyone to discuss/dispute. It is said that the best way to get a
question answered on usenet is to post an incorrect answer. Persuant
to that, I have not done extensive readings of some of the protocol
papers during my characterizations, but at least they're all there in
a forum where we can compare apples and fruit baskets.

I'll be adding more dimensions and would like feedback on what people
wish to compare. Also, I'd like to have anchor-rich HTML versions of
the documents so I can point to specific parts of the spec as
supporting evidence.


Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2000 20:17:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:56 GMT