[Standards] XEP-0138 vs. TLS compression
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
> Jonathan Dickinson
More information about the Standards