[Standards] certification etc.

Fletcher, Boyd C. CIV US USJFCOM JFL J9935 Boyd.Fletcher at je.jfcom.mil
Wed Mar 28 05:06:10 UTC 2007

as long as the servers are required to have stream compression (for C2S an S2S connections) then i suppose that is good enough. 

btw, you can read more on Efficient XML at http://www.agiledelta.com/w3c_binary_xml_proposal.html

its really quite good which is why the w3.org chose it.


-----Original Message-----
From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org on behalf of Mridul
Sent: Wed 3/28/07 12:48 AM
To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Standards] certification etc.
Rachel Blackman wrote:
>>> so does anyone have an objection with making stream compression 
>>> required for
>>> the intermediate suite?
>> Well stream compression isn't practical for some (otherwise 
>> intermediate-compliant) clients running in constrained environments. 
>> For example, Flash clients. So, if stream compression was added to the 
>> requirements, there would probably need to be an exception for 
>> constrained clients.
> I think stream compression should only be a required element on the 
> server side, honestly, for the sake of clients that can't do encryption 
> and are bandwidth limited.  Clients in general are better off doing TLS 
> where available, rather than doing compressed unencrypted streams.
> I'm fine with supporting compressed streams, myself, I just think it's 
> sort of redundant to make it a requirement, given TLS.
> --Rachel Blackman <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com>
> Trillian Messenger - http://www.trillianastra.com/

Makes perfect sense.


More information about the Standards mailing list