- From: Sami Khoury <sami@whatuwant.net>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 14:14:56 -0700
- To: "'Eric Prud'hommeaux'" <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: XML DistApp ML <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sure, thanks for the clarification. Sami -----Original Message----- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux [mailto:eric@w3.org] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 2:05 PM To: Sami Khoury Cc: XML DistApp ML Subject: Re: XML protocol comparison On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 01:36:19PM -0700, Sami Khoury wrote: > Eric said: "The defined ICE grammer is used only for the transport protocol, > and not for defining what is in the payload." > > Right -- that's why I would have classified ICE as generic. I suspect that Every transport mechanism (FTP, SMTP, finger) would fit in that category of generic. > by "generic" you meant, "provides a mechanism to represent arbitrary data", I'm happy with that definition and incorporated it into the matrix. > where ICE simply allows an application to transport and negotiate over > arbitrary data. However, I don't know of an protocol that provides an > invertible transform mechanism for arbitrary data (for example, nothing in > XML-RPC mandates that a GIF be sent as base64 or by reference, if it is to > occur as a method parameter). You can take a SOAP message and reconstrcut a graph of inter-related structures. XML-RPC doesn't do graphs, but you could reconstruct a simple (address) record that had a name, address, street, etc. Again, I'm not married to this grouping. I just want folks to understand why I put thigs where I did (for now). > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Prud'hommeaux [mailto:eric@w3.org] > Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 1:29 PM > To: Sami Khoury > Cc: XML DistApp ML > Subject: Re: XML protocol comparison > > > On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 12:46:40PM -0700, Sami Khoury wrote: > > 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. > > I suspected my terms weren't the greatest choice, but wanted to get it > out for discussion quickly. Perhaps I should just sequester those that > have "non custom serialization". The defined ICE grammer is used only > for the transport protocol, and not for defining what is in the > payload. > > WfXML is now in the generic group. > > > -----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) > > -- > -eric > > (eric@w3.org) -- -eric (eric@w3.org)
Received on Monday, 8 May 2000 17:15:09 UTC