The big issue is that there is not a closed dictionary or set of DTDs that
encompass the Jabber protocol. Clients can and do invent their own namespaces
to send custom data.
It would be a very cool project, but you would most probably need a scheme
which defines a 'base' dictionary, yet is extensible with additional
namespaces. I haven't looked at the bXML stuff by the WAP people to know if
this is within their standard.
-David Waite
Jens Alfke wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2001, at 09:29 AM, Thomas Charron wrote:
>
> > There is also the fact that by leaving the XML as ASCII, it leaves the
> >
> > transmission hardware to actually compress the data. Binary data is much
> > harder to compress then raw ASCII.
> >
> >
> Yes, but the binary data would already be compressed much further than ASCII
> could be. For example, the tokenization would compress a long attribute name
> like "jabber:iq:conference" down to something like two bytes.
>
> One has to assume that the WAP people considered general compression vs.
> tokenization, and that they went with the latter because it offered better
> compression.
>
> -Jens
_______________________________________________
jdev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
