[Standards-JIG] XMPP bandwidth compression

Bob Wyman bob at wyman.us
Wed Jun 30 23:26:08 UTC 2004


Boyd Fletcher wrote:
> What does everything think about starting up a small working
> group to small definitely the XMPP compression problem?
	As I mentioned in an earlier mail, W3C is working on this issue and
there are working groups in ITU/ISO focused on the issues as well. The
problem is not XMPP specific. These problems of size and parsing speed are
general to ALL systems that use XML. Just as Jabber doesn't define XML, it
shouldn't be defining "compressed," "binary," or "alternate" forms of XML.
There should be a division of labor here... It would not be good if XMPP
ended up defining a non-standard solution without some very distinct
benefit.
	Something that *would* be useful, is an effort that generated a
clear description of the requirements and constraints that exist in the
domain that XMPP addresses. Such information would be very helpful in
ensuring that XMPP issues and needs were understood by others and thus
addressed in the process of clearing up the general issue. Also, it would
make a great deal of sense to build up and characterize a stream "corpus" or
set of them, that represents "streams" of XMPP that could be used, when
solutions are proposed, as test cases. (Basically, all proposed methods
should be tested against the same streams of information.) We should have a
basic chat corpus, a MUC corpus, a pubsub corpus, etc. -- with each being as
faithfully representative of real or expected streams as possible.
	XMPP should not attempt to "solve" this problem, however, the XMPP
community should, I think, be active in helping to develop the solution to
the overall problem.

		bob wyman





More information about the Standards mailing list