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

Re: XML protocol comparisons

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:44:51 -0500
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20000330124451.C21990@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:04:56AM -0800, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> Very neat! A few comment on the organization of the table: I think the
> "organization" and "architects" columns are slightly confusing as many of
> the specs mentioned have authors from several places
> 
>     http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix
> 
> Maybe they should just be put into a single column called "authors".

The origonal intent was to confine the organizations list to just
those that were currently pushing/using the protocol vs. those that
were no longer involved. I'll probably back off on this in the next
week if it doesn't turn out to be useful.

> Also, the "status" column is hard to evaluate as what does it mean to be
> coded vs deployed and deployed where etc? 

The status column was intended to help poeple understand where these
protocols lay in the continuum of vague handwaving to foundation of
our society. I think that getting some data from folks on the list
will make the field worthwhile. What do other folks think?

>                                           Maybe it would be better to point
> to the public forum where the protocol is being discussed.

Dan Brickley touched on the forum issue too. I was going to answer him
as soon as I'd really contemplated the graph encoding issues he raised.

Anybody got a pointer to a SOAP list archive? How about mailing lists
for any of the other protocols discussed? mailto: links are OK, but
browsable archives would be my pref.

Is there a contest anywhere for most unusably wide table on the web?
-- 
-eric

(eric@w3.org)
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2000 12:44:53 GMT

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