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

RE: XML protocol comparison

From: Sami Khoury <sami@whatuwant.net>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:46:40 -0700
Message-ID: <F0CBA28A8CE1D311B64300508BC2162201BFA3@SARUMAN>
To: XML DistApp ML <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Hm, how are "generic" and "app-specific" being defined?  I ask because ICE
isn't app-specific in any vertical industry sense, nor in any programmatic
sense.

Thanks,

	Sami


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Prud'hommeaux [mailto:eric@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 10:20 AM
To: Bernhard Dorninger
Cc: XML DistApp ML
Subject: Re: XML protocol comparison


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 15:46:55 GMT

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