[Standards-JIG] Re: Re: proto-JEP: Stream Acking

Nolan Eakins sneakin at semanticgap.com
Thu Oct 28 04:33:35 UTC 2004


Justin Karneges wrote:
> Nothing changed.

It didn't look like anything did. Maybe the second time around will be
better.
 
> It's funny you bring up single-character acking, considering JEP-0017 came
> up
> recently, which also wanted to throw stuff into the <stream> CDATA.  I
> feel
> we shouldn't even go there.  We have namespaced elements for a reason.

I guess throwing in CDATA could cause some problems down the road. Multiple
enhancements that do this couldn't coexist unless their development was
coordinated, or if there was a <stream/> CDATA JEP that defined some rules.
That may not be needed.
 
> However we could pick a shorter namespace or a short element name (kinda
> like
> JEP-0115) just to reduce size.  You could also declare another namespace
> prefix in the stream tag.

Here's some choices using <ack/> as an example and their lengths:
   <ack xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/ack'/>        45
   <ack xmlns='jabber:ack'/>                            25
   <ack xmlns='j:ack'/>                                 20
   <a xmlns='j:ack'/>                                   18
   <ack/>                                               6
   <a/>                                                 4
   A                                                    1

Take your pick. I personally prefer the later ones since they're small. The
namespace attribute maybe needed, unless something like '<a:ack/>' or
'<a:a/>' can be done. I guess that could be done since the XML parser would
know the namespace. That actually would be preferable, since the 'xmlns'
attribute uses the most bytes in any of the above examples, and different
prefixes could be used for different features preventing any element name
conflicts. Something CDATA can't do.

- Nolan

-- 
http://www.semanticgap.com/people/sneakin/




More information about the Standards mailing list