[Standards-JIG] Re: MUC traffic issues

Trejkaz trejkaz at trypticon.org
Mon Feb 20 04:54:12 UTC 2006

Ulrich Staudinger wrote:
> Well, that does not work good for large chat rooms, the delivered 
> messages would become ULTRA big. I still think the xmpp protocol is very 
> verbose and a diet could be good for it, but that's my personal opinion. 
> ( I still like the approach to slim out "iq" by "i", "presence" by "p" 
> and "message" by "m"), but don't listen to me on the last topic.

I'm inclined not to care much about compressing "presence" to "p" as 
long as people are still declaring namespaces at the point of use 
instead of putting some of the more common ones up on the root element.

I think some kind of XML macros would probably pay off faster anyway.

(Not to mention using real compression... whoops, I just did.)


More information about the Standards mailing list