[Standards] certification etc.
Fletcher, Boyd C. CIV US USJFCOM JFL J9935
Boyd.Fletcher at je.jfcom.mil
Sat Mar 17 18:06:05 UTC 2007
We would like to see stream compression part of basic.
it might be a good idea to look at how we can include w3.org's new xml compression algorithm. Under many conditions its better that gzip.
USJFCOM J9/SPAWAR SSC SD
M: 757.535.8190 (GSM)
M: 757.771.7084 (BB)
Sent from my BlackBerry.
From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org <standards-bounces at xmpp.org>
To: XMPP Extension Discussion List <standards at xmpp.org>
Sent: Fri Mar 16 22:36:34 2007
Subject: RE: [Standards] certification etc.
Yep, stream compression isn't a bad one to include. Also, an advanced
suite is a great idea -- it's key to have stretch goals. :)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org
> [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:16 PM
> To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Standards] certification etc.
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >> XEP-0073: Basic IM Protocol Suite
> >> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0073.html
> > Basic seems fine to me now. But we'll need to think about how Basic
> > interacts with the RFC revisions, which won't be published
> by the end
> > of June.
> Looking at the Draft and Final XEPs, I think we may want to
> make stream compression (XEP-0138) recommended. Thoughts?
More information about the Standards