[standards-jig] No Subject....
mikelin at MIT.EDU
Mon Feb 4 21:49:03 UTC 2002
> Yes. Hence, I have moved the discussion of JNG to another thread. With
> regard to JEP 0017, I think our original discussion still stands: there are
> difficult problems here and it may just not be worth addressing without a
> willingness to consider alternatives to Jabber's "pure XML" approach...
> Will a stopgap XML framing effort pay off and be adopted?
There are real benefits to new implementations (such as Jabber.NET and
Jabber for embedded devices) from having JEP-0017-style framing
information available, since it makes XML Stream interpretation much
The minimum effort required to realize these benefits to new
implementations is to have jabberd transmit framing information. Jabberd
does not immediately need to interpret it; no existing client
implementations should need to be changed.
Thus, minimum compliance with JEP-0017 would be exceedingly trivial to
implement and would make life easier for new implementations.
This "Naive Packet Framing Protocol" explicitly does not attempt to
address the deeper questions about the Jabber protocol, although I am
glad to see that it has at least stimulated discussion in this area.
More information about the Standards