[standards-jig] NEW JEP: Inband Bytestream (JEP-0047)

Ben Schumacher ben at blahr.com
Mon Sep 30 05:08:03 CDT 2002


On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Sebastiaan 'CBAS' Deckers wrote:
> Why BASE64?  Surely there are more compact encoding mechanisms?
> For example: http://b-news.sourceforge.net/
> I don't think this particular method would work in XML, but the theory
> behind it can be applied to have less than the 33% hit that BASE64 has.

I will comment on this. BASE64 has the advantage of being pretty free
format in the way the data is sent/received. It requires relatively low
CPU power, and it doesn't include any characters that would have to be
further encoded to be transported inside XML. Since BommaNews uses XML
specials characters in its encoding, anything we sent across an XML stream
would have to be further encoded. I believe the same applies for yenc, and
many other encoding mechanisms.

It seems me that it would be inefficient to use an encoding system that
already increases your CPU load (see the BommaNews site), and then have
to modify the output again to encode XML specials characters before you
send it over the stream. While it does decrease the network load, it does
increase the CPU load on both ends.

By that reasoning, I guess its a trade-off on which is more important, a
lower bandwidth scheme, or a less computational intense scheme.

bs.




More information about the Standards-JIG mailing list