Hi All, Sorry about the late late answer, but actually a JSON would be very nice to have when using very old browsers, which still exists in many set-top boxes (STB). In that scenario in would be easier and a lot faster to have JSON instead of XML. In fact in some STBs the default browser is mozilla 1.7.12..
So on the client side, using BOSH, this could be a nice extension. Maybe a change in the BOSH server could be proposed. I think I will change my own BOSH server so it can serve back JSON instead of XML if a parameter in the body i set (along with the other parameters). -Cheers! /Steffen On Apr 19, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Helander Mika (Nokia-S/Oulu) wrote: > Advantages are not only in transport and/or XMPP-server, but in client-side. > If client is pure JavaScript, processing XML is pain in the butt. > > And JSON compresses also very well. > > -Mika > > On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 20:59 +0100, ext Alexander Gnauck wrote: >> >> Am 28.02.2010 07:06, Earlence Fernandes wrote: >> > I had initially proposed this solution on the Mobile mailing list. >> > They have said that discussions had already taken place on this list. >> > I want to know whether there was any solution etc with regards to the >> > problems faced in a mapping of this type(Eg: JSON does not have >> > namespaces). >> > Would it be technically feasible to have a suitable yet efficient >> > mapping from XML to JSON. >> >> XML and XMPP supports also mixed content which is not supported in JSON. >> XML compresses very well with stream compression. And CPU usage is very >> low with zlib, so I see no advantages for JSON. >> >> Regards, >> Alex >> -- >> Alexander Gnauck >> http://www.ag-software.de >> xmpp:[email protected] >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
