-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [ going back to interleaved comments - top-posting is evil ]
On 3/11/13 7:26 PM, Peter Waher wrote: > Hello Peter > > Thanks for the links. We are aware of those attempts, and the IEEE > working group had also unearthed them. > > However, the proposed solution is not sufficient. That was as far as we got in 2008. > For EXI to be successfully implemented, there needs to be a > handshake where both parties agrees on a set of parameters and a > set of schemas to use. That might lead in the direction of using a separate port with a different SRV record. > Also, an interchange of schemas between parties would be very > good, so introduction of new schemas could be done without having > to update software. Even though EXI can work in a schema-less mode, > it's compression ability is best when both parties have access to > the same XML schema. Yes. We don't have a way to do that now, but we'd need it in this case. > I've on my list to create such a proposal and mail to this list. Great, I'm looking forward to it! Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRPmqxAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pSvIP/1g+jsXVSTZlO5WsjOuNlPhJ hAZXkpvNac5VfW7exPzKLoiXlBAnQ/8QfShmzQX1M/Xuye+J/WeT507JNZADcTaJ OL57izNLyFnDdL50f+2OiwUgnvcfxkOK29Cjrj+CMwF5tMf4MdnOqtAEDgr1Fjqy LIC8aMb5x+1RdepCN9sMpFqNPQYNyRkZ4CAIQNn7LbAtg95/9u/j7GexEg8gZEFI QQ3Cagz+//jkdaHGOJX/0flEmraM42pwUiqoEpoVP7TJ6IBN+OZdzjzK9DfKo6JI PQGDwHPrPe3gVqeDFxyuiNRjgZ7xRbpV4n4/we8+rcmpyklwYRBgMzE3leT+zwGj SeV67lHc1Qg0o1kQi4RUQxznvujVuqhJMPgek9ksNWB7GgwkG5ZMkfg4aXx3HV6B TKW01HNt9vurDQEaEvuR/YUN23fbQxbkHYbSti0u8hfLsOCZ9nKm7l5S/tTJK10n XjoHQUSA6i+1IwaXXEpYopxcsu88nRbPq3cqt4rcGzT7X+l2AUwSEVQ4kHo7erW9 x9RayNgSqi3ZU17gxUe3ECW93YS5XpE3KjhP7outzYSMgd20q+qRagZbT2c6oCq0 O7kaMPPAzJQ/fa0dtutZsBNG6vkmv6xEqTAqJytqxuDKpBPt4kQ6RZxC8yzndV31 HW3MsA85M/eiAp1b2ua2 =8owV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
