[Standards] mobile optimizations (was: Re: Google Andro ï d SDK not XMPP compliant ?)

Boyd Fletcher boyd.fletcher at je.jfcom.mil
Thu Feb 14 22:17:33 UTC 2008


Actually the W3C binary XML standard when compared to traditional
compression standards like Zip is significantly better. The binary
conversion process also compresses file.

You might want to read:

http://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-exi-measurements-20070725/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xbc-characterization/#N107D4

BTW, Fast Infoset was not selected by the W3C.



On 2/14/08 5:04 PM, "Fabio Forno" <fabio.forno at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> 
>> >  I've never been all that convinced about binary XML forms. They work
>> >  to a degree with the highly fixed XML in, for example, SyncML, and
>> >  they're pretty good at compressing individual stanza-like objects
>> >  over SMS for things like OMA EMN (Email Message Notification, or
>> >  something - I've long since forgotten what these acronyms stand for),
>> >  but for long-running streams I'm under the impression that studies
>> >  show it'll be outperformed.
>> >
>> >  So if you're a big fan of Binary XML formats, please bring along your
>> >  figures. :-)
> 
> Missing the reference, but you should get the best with binary +
> compression, however it's not worth the candle, since EXTENSIBLE
> binary xml is not easy (there are fast infosets, but the specification
> is incredibly complex) and the gain is not so high
> 
> --
> Fabio Forno, Ph.D.
> Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com
> jabber id: ff at jabber.bluendo.com
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080214/bb19b0bc/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list