[Standards] XEP-0138 vs. TLS compression

Jonathan Chayce Dickinson chayce.za at gmail.com
Thu Aug 30 10:54:24 UTC 2007

They do have a testing framework out, I'm not sure what that is. It's 
too big for me to download. Maybe someone could download it and evaluate 
how well the format works.


Boyd Fletcher wrote:
> I was thinking we would just add it to XEP-138 instead of writing a new XEP.
> I believe some of the folks on the W3 committee are working on an
> implementation of EXI.
> On 8/29/07 6:52 PM, "Joe Hildebrand" <hildjj at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 2007, at 7:00 AM, 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.
>> You should write a XEP, then, that defines the compression method
>> name, a pointer to the relevant W3C doc, and the XMPP Registrar
>> Considerations that asks the registrar to add it to the list of
>> compression methods.
>> Off-topic: are there any open source implementations of EXI yet?
>> --
>> Joe Hildebrand

jonathan chayce dickinson
ruby/c# developer

cell:   +27741863698
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/20070830/10817a59/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list