http://code.google.com/android/migrating/m3-to-m5/m5-api-changes.html#gtalk
That is pretty twisted.
If this was Microsoft, you would see the proprietary extensions
coming. You would also see this as a reason for Google Talk to be
first class, where all other XMPP services are second rate in support.
Kind of feels like one step forward, two steps back.
On 14 Feb
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 11:57 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Per recent list discussion, Ralph Meijer and I have provisionally
adjusted XEP-0060 (Publish-Subscribe) to cover the use case of
disassociating a node from a collection.
[..]
I see the attribute to refer to the node being
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Paul Witty wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Wed Feb 13 13:13:26 2008, Lauri Kaila wrote:
If I understood you, a client should know its network capacity. Then
it tells that infromation to the other end so they can agree on the
best media fromat that
Paul Witty wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Paul Witty wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Wed Feb 13 13:13:26 2008, Lauri Kaila wrote:
If I understood you, a client should know its network capacity. Then
it tells that infromation to the other end so they can agree on the
best media
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Lee Dryburgh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this just stands to open the whole binary encoded debate once
again. I'm too much of a coward to be caught in the crossfire so I
will duck out and not give my opinion.
Once I was one of those baldly standing for
Fabio Forno schrieb:
...
- compression is not as bad as I thought and if time to market is
essential that's the only viable solution
see also my comments in the jdev thread, I think we should all hop one
one thread ;-)
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/2008-February/026157.html
I have
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Alexander Gnauck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
see also my comments in the jdev thread, I think we should all hop one
one thread ;-)
yep ;)
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/2008-February/026157.html
I have done lots of mobile programming and tests in
agree, my point of view is just that binary xml is not the only issue
with mobile terminals, there is a wider set of problems to be
considered for optimizing the connection (some such as stanza
acknowledgments are already there, though I don't know how many
servers handle them, others such as
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:22:09AM +0100, Ralph Meijer wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 11:57 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Per recent list discussion, Ralph Meijer and I have provisionally
adjusted XEP-0060 (Publish-Subscribe) to cover the use case of
disassociating a node from a
Alexander Gnauck wrote:
Fabio Forno schrieb:
...
- compression is not as bad as I thought and if time to market is
essential that's the only viable solution
see also my comments in the jdev thread, I think we should all hop one
one thread ;-)
With or without TLS enabled?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: XMPP Extension Discussion List standards@xmpp.org
Sent: Thu Feb 14 14:52:55 2008
Subject: Re: [Standards]binary XML (was: Re: [jdev] Google Androïd SDK not XMPP
compliant ?)
We have tested
Dave Cridland wrote:
I'm aware that there are several mobile client developers present - if
there's any good to be found here, a concrete proposal for mobile XMPP
would be an excellent step forward.
Sounds like a good topic of discussion at the devcon next week.
I'm assuming that XEP-0138,
We have tested XMPP (with zlib compression) over radio links (9.6 kB) and
found that chat is not too bad. The biggest problem was the TCP connection
and SASL authentication (too many handshakes). It takes up to 3 minutes to
connect/reconnect which is not acceptable.
Cheers
Michael
On Thu, Feb
On Thu Feb 14 20:08:53 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Here's a list of things we might talk about:
1. Recommendations regarding when to use the TCP binding and when
to use
the HTTP binding (BOSH).
2. Compression via TLS or XEP-0138 (use it!). Also binary XML as a
compression mechanism.
+1 for the fast reconnect
On 2/14/08 3:08 PM, Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
I'm aware that there are several mobile client developers present - if
there's any good to be found here, a concrete proposal for mobile XMPP
would be an excellent step forward.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Dave Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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/
Dave,
take a look at http://www.agiledelta.com/w3c_binary_xml_proposal.html and
http://www.idealliance.org/papers/xml02/dx_xml02/papers/06-02-04/06-02-04.pd
f. The W3C spec is based on Agile Delta¹s EfficientXML. the data I have seen
on EfficientXML indicate that it many times more efficient on
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 08:39:29PM +, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu Feb 14 20:08:53 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
3. Fast reconnect to avoid TLS+SASL+resource-binding packets.
Lots of work from mobile email (ie, Lemonade) is transferrable here.
It'd be really nice if Tony Finch was
(Hey, where did that space come from in the subject line?)
On Thu Feb 14 22:06:19 2008, Boyd Fletcher wrote:
1362 byte message strongly typed
WinZip 3.13 times smaller than original
EfficientXML 75.67 times smaller than original
980 byte message loosely type
WinZip 1.6 times smaller than
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Boyd Fletcher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1362 byte message – strongly typed
WinZip 3.13 times smaller than original
EfficientXML 75.67 times smaller than original
980 byte message – loosely type
WinZip 1.6 times smaller than original
Efficient XML 8.45
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Dave Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To my mind, the figures and graphs there suggest that improvements
over DEFLATE will be marginal at best for our kind of data.
That's my point as you can read in my other mail, benchmarks are too
sensitive to the nature
On 2/14/08 5:57 PM, Fabio Forno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Boyd Fletcher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1362 byte message strongly typed
WinZip 3.13 times smaller than original
EfficientXML 75.67 times smaller than original
980 byte message
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Boyd Fletcher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that protocol improvements are in order. But XMPP data was looked
at but some of the folks on the W3 committee as example data and the
compression was significant. There has also been some internal testing in
On Thu Feb 14 22:49:20 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 08:39:29PM +, Dave Cridland wrote:
Lots of work from mobile email (ie, Lemonade) is transferrable
here. It'd be really nice if Tony Finch was coming, since he
could talk us through QTLS and QUICKSTART -
Fabio Forno schrieb:
... Anyway I can anticipate that with zlib the size of a whole
message stanza is often shorter or minimally longer than the
uncompressed body alone: do we really need better performance?
I posted some stats in another thread before:
27 matches
Mail list logo
