Re: XML protocol comparison

I understand why BizTalk and eCo are
not in the protocol group -- by why
ebXML?

The transport for ebXML is just a protocol!
> Resent-Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 13:19:48 -0400 (EDT)
> Resent-Message-Id: <200005081719.NAA21946@www19.w3.org>
> To: Bernhard Dorninger <bernhard.dorninger@scch.at>
> Cc: XML DistApp ML <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Subject: Re: XML protocol comparison
> Resent-From: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> X-Mailing-List: <xml-dist-app@w3.org> archive/latest/180
> X-Loop: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Resent-Sender: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> 
> On Fri, May 05, 2000 at 05:13:06PM +0200, Bernhard Dorninger wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > The more I read specs and related material of the "protocols" listed in
> > Eric's matrix, th more I feel, that heavyweights like BizTalk, eCo, ebXML
> > should not be mentioned in one go with protocols like XMLRPC, SOAP or WDDX.
> > The former are far more than just protocols, they provide an integrative
> > infrastructure for E-commerce. So IMO BizTalk and Co. should not directly be
> > compared to XMLRPC and Co.,  I think the two "groups of protocols" have been
> > designed with completely different intentions.
> 
> I was thinking the same thi
> 
> Yes, the list seems to benifit from grouping of similar protocols (see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Apr/0058.html). I
> meant to propse furthur grouping, but apparently failed.
> 
> I just made a quick pass at this (see
> http://slow1.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix). Summary:
> 
> generic:
>   XML-RPC
>   SOAP
>   WDDX
>   XMI
>   jabber
>   ebXML
>   BizTalk
>   BXXP
>   LOTP
> 
> app-specific:
>   ICE
>   IOPT
>   WfXML
>   eCo
>   XMOP
>   
> non-XML:
>   TIP
>   XDR
>   HTTP-NG
>   template
>   
> I haven't read all of these specs so some of these may be in the wrong
> place. Pleast post corrections to the list.
> 
> -- 
> -eric
> 
> (eric@w3.org)
>

Received on Monday, 8 May 2000 15:23:55 UTC