[standards-jig] JNG Ramblings.
mikelin at MIT.EDU
Tue Aug 13 15:11:05 UTC 2002
> These two are basically saying the same thing. The server/router needs
> to check the correctness of the XML you are sending and yell at you if
> you send bad XML.
In Mikes' JNG, it's actually no longer strictly necessary (only
preferable) for routers to check the well-formedness of XML payloads
that they don't actually have to parse, because with proper framing,
transmitting malformed XML no longer necessarily causes a
That stated, Oliver outlined the good, open questions related to
factoring addressing out of the XML envelope, which are mostly the same
reasons I'm not doing it in the proof-of-concept.
> I agree. Everyone is talking about a new protocol and not Jabber.
> Jabber is XML, it is not binary. Until the official XML spec contains
> provisions for binary, Jabber should not be binary.
XML is a document format, not a transport, and not a wire protocol. It's
a wonderful document format, but we're kidding ourselves by trying to
use it for either of the latter, because it's just awful for those
By the way, we're not the only ones having this problem; you might want
to see SOAP Attachments.
> Is it faster/smaller/more efficient? Probably. But it's not Jabber at
> that point. I have several contacts out in the corporate world who have
> come to me looking for help with Jabber because their industry is moving
> towards XML, and they want to have a good XML router. If what they
> wanted was something that could carry XML payloads, then they could just
> as easily use a different project.
My money says they came to Jabber because of its open-source aura and
the fact that it uses XML at all, not because it has an XML-only wire
> Our strength is the XML. That fact it's extensible and well structured.
Get over this notion that I'm dumping XML. I'm not. I'm sprinkling 4
bytes here and there that vastly simplify things for the machine.
Everything else that's not a binary attachment is XML.
More information about the Standards