[standards-jig] JNG Ramblings.

Iain Shigeoka iain.shigeoka at messaginglogic.com
Wed Aug 14 05:59:53 UTC 2002

On 8/13/02 3:05 PM, "Ryan Eatmon" <reatmon at jabber.org> wrote:

> So basically, the XML remains XML, and all current clients will not
> break.  But for those that want to speak and transfer things in binary,
> you can connect to another port on the server, and converse in binary.
> The best of both worlds.  Both are streaming, both understand sending a
> packet to reatmon at jabber.org/Home, but they do not mix.
> Now that's something I'd get behind and champion.

If you can do everything in the binary protocol that you can do in the XML
protocol (including sending XML) then what's the difference with that and
suggesting a binary replacement for Jabber.  I would think if you go through
the trouble of implementing the full binary protocol to support binary
transports, there's not much sense in also implementing the XML protocol?

If the binary protocol is just for shipping binary data and everything else
is negotiated over the XML transport (including I would suppose what to do
with each binary packet) then what's the difference between that and just
jabber as we have it plus HTTP?

I'm not trying to say either is necessarily bad, but am looking for more
information on what you're thinking about.

I find it interesting that no one has been championing Jabber as it is (all
XML) plus much more extensive use of HTTP (WebDav maybe?) as the out of band
channel to handle everything else.

I know it is partially there, and so maybe it is being ignored as a possible
way to move Jabber forward...


More information about the Standards mailing list