[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.



boyd


Boyd Fletcher
USJFCOM J9/SPAWAR SSC SD
M: 757.535.8190 (GSM)
M: 757.771.7084 (BB)
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry. 

-----Original Message-----
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.

Peter,

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. :)

-Matt 

> -----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?
> 
> /psa
> 
> 


More information about the Standards mailing list