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

Re: XML protocol comparison

From: Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 12:03:34 -0700
Message-ID: <01a201bfb9e9$471c0380$1918ccce@murphy>
To: "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>, "Daniel Koger" <dkoger@hdtd.com>, "'Eric Prud'hommeaux'" <eric@w3.org>, "Bernhard Dorninger" <bernhard.dorninger@scch.at>
Cc: "XML DistApp ML" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
RE: XML protocol comparisonFollowup, Dan Connaly asked for details, here's what I said: "We didn't know you were doing work there, but Vignette knew we were. How would we know to contact you? The first we heard about ICE was the acknowledged submission and Vignette's huge partner list, that included everyone *but* UserLand. We were doing development with them at the time. When we asked what happened they said we didn't think of it. 

Also, there is a fundamental difference between the way we do syndication and the way Vignette does it. They move copy around the net and we move pointers. Clearly they like their approach because it sells rendering software. We also make a rendering engine, much more powerful than Vignette's (and less expensive too), but we don't try to snooker customers into buying unneeded software and replicating content. Instead of pushing the words around we send summaries and pointers using a format we developed with Netscape called RSS, which is becoming very widely supported. We think this is the way the web was supposed to work. In comparison, ICE is blindingly complex, impossible to understand, and therefore not very widely supported.

A milestone piece on this, written in Sept 1999, is here:

http://davenet.userland.com/1999/09/03/theDarkSideOfSyndication

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2000 15:03:13 GMT

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