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

Re: XML protocol comparisons

From: Mark Baker <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:51:00 -0500
Message-ID: <38E377E4.9EA38614@canada.sun.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Dan Brickley wrote:
> Other Protocols / Scope:
> It's interesting to know how to scope this. XML for protocols is clearly
> the focus, but then there are some outputs from the HTTP-NG investigations
>  (http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP-NG/) which I'd consider relevant. They
> proposed a layered approach which I believe used a binary encoding by
> default but allowed an XML-based format to be dropped in. Seems a shame to
> omit (as 'not an XML protocol') approaches that adopt such a layered
> approach, but then HTTP-NG _wasn't_ an XML-based protocol proposal. Maybe
> a separate listing somewhere to at least bookmark these?

I agree completely, and was going to say exactly that.  The syntax
that the protocol uses is mostly immaterial.  There are several
extensible protocols out there that are relevant to this group that
don't happen to use XML as their syntax; HTTP, for example.

That said, I am thankful to Eric for compiling that list.

MB
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2000 10:49:13 GMT

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