[standards-jig] Pub/Sub for JNG?

Dave dave at dave.tj
Thu May 2 19:45:42 UTC 2002


Well, I'm glad that somebody stepped forward to provide a particular
example that will be hard for anybody here to argue against of why the XML
transfer layer _should_ be seperated out, so entities can use different
ones (my original statement, which caused the whole controversy in the
first place).  Plain old TCP with no compression is not necessarily the
best option, and arbitrarily limiting Jabber to that is a bad idea.

I won't say any more, since I have no interest in being thrown off
the list.  (If I didn't care about Jabber, I wouldn't waste hours a week
arguing with anybody who dares to disagree with me. . .)

 - Dave


Fabrice DESRE "- FT.BD/FTR&D/DTL/TAL" wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2002-05-01 at 20:54, David Waite wrote:
> 
> > I still think the best solution to the bandwidth problem (assuming for 
> > the moment that it is a problem) is a jabber-specific compression 
> > system, with a default (negotiated) dictionary which is appended by both
> > 
> > sides as traffic continues. Ideally this compression system would also 
> > be a binary representation of the XML, but this becomes significantly 
> > difficult with things like prefixed namespaces :-)
> 
>  You should take a serious look at the ongoing work on ASN.1/XML mapping
> that is available for instance at http://asn1.elibel.tm.fr/xml/
> ASN.1 supports the use of very efficient binary encoding while having a
> powerful schema language to describe your data.
> The next results from the ASN.1 people will allow the transport of XML
> through the translation of XML schemas to ASN.1 modules.
> 
> 	Fabrice
> 
> -- 
> Fabrice Desré - France Telecom R&D/DTL/TAL
> Tel: +(33) 2 96 05 31 43
> Fax: +(33) 2 96 05 39 45
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list