[Standards] XEP-0138 vs. TLS compression

Jonathan Chayce Dickinson chayce.za at gmail.com
Wed Aug 29 18:02:48 UTC 2007


Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
> Jonathan Chayce Dickinson wrote:
>> *snip*
> 
> 
> 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.

The idea is still great though. If it's not one binary XML format then 
it is another.

The thing about EXI is that it is pre-parsed, in a sense: the parser has 
to do very little work to get at the XML data itself. EXI is not only 
designed to be small, but fast. And it also fits in neatly with 
main-stream compression algorithms. May I say again: it is fast to parse.

So on the point of adoption, it is a W3 spec, I'm sure there will be a 
following pretty soon?

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

Regards,
  Jonathan Dickinson

-- 
jonathan chayce dickinson
ruby/c# developer

email:  chayce.za at gmail.com
jabber: moitoi at inflecto.org

<some profound piece of wisdom>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6974 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070829/b92d5e48/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list