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

RE: XML protocol comparisons

From: Sami Khoury <sami@whatuwant.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:30:07 -0800
Message-ID: <F0CBA28A8CE1D311B64300508BC2162201BD91@SARUMAN>
To: "'Ken MacLeod'" <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
ICE goes to some length to remain domain agnostic, in fact.  Version 1.1 of
the protocol (due out real soon now) will provide an extensibility mechanism
to allow particular domains to better tailor it to particular scenarios.

However, there's nothing about ICE that says you must send any of news
headlines, capability tokens, or digital video.  You can send any and all of

I am coauthor of the ICE specification -- we'll have updates to the protocol
matrix (thanks, Eric, for putting that together) early next week.  In
particular, its status should be updated to deployed as there are numerous
implementations running as well as development libraries available.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ken MacLeod [mailto:ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 4:20 PM
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: Re: XML protocol comparisons

"Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org> writes:

> [<http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix>]

Looking through the list, I notice that some of the protocols contain
domain (application) specific functionality:

  ICE    -- content exchange
  IOTP   -- internet commerce
  TIP    -- two-phase transaction commits
  WF-XML -- workflow
  Jabber -- instant messaging

This might be part of or a better label ("domain specific [portions]")
for "business process".

Typically, those who are developing "generic" protocols are doing so
to provide "domain specific" applications a common protocol to use.
TIP, on the other hand, could be defined as an extension to a generic

  -- Ken
Received on Friday, 31 March 2000 12:30:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:09 UTC