[Standards] XEP-0138 vs. TLS compression

Mridul Muralidharan mridul at sun.com
Wed Aug 29 15:03:51 UTC 2007


Jonathan Chayce Dickinson wrote:
> Fletcher, Boyd C. CIV US USJFCOM JFL J9935 wrote:
>> Speaking of compression, I think we should consider adding the w3's 
>> efficient xml interchange (exi) support to xep-138. The testing 
>> results I've seen for EXI indicate that in many circumstances it is 
>> quite a bit better than zlib or tls compression. In addition to better 
>> b/w utilization use of exi within the xmpp router could potentially 
>> lead to dramatically improved scalability as binary xml is far more 
>> efficient to process.
> 
> Interesting note on what I was trying to get at with DIME.
> 
> "7.1.1 Binary
> 
> Values typed as Binary are represented as a length-prefixed sequence of 
> octets representing the binary content. The length is represented as an 
> Unsigned Integer (see 7.1.6 Unsigned Integer)."
> 
> Suddenly it all becomes plausible. No need for Base64.
> 


There are enough extensions to supporting binary content inband in xml, 
the point is about interoperability & adoption - not whether it can or 
cant be done.
A few specs have pulled this off like wbxml, etc ... and have wider 
adoption & implementation. I would really not quote DIME, etc in this 
context.

- Mridul


>>
>>
>>
>> boyd
>>
>>
>> *snip*
>>
> 
> Regards,
>  Jonathan Dickinson
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list