On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 09:56:12AM -0800, Justin Karneges wrote: > On Monday 05 November 2007 3:40 am, Dave Cridland wrote: > > Now, we can't expect that the entire Internet will bend to our will > > and instantly upgrade, so we need a sane fallback - probably to IBB, > > or something fairly similar. The interesting question is whether we > > choose to have this negotiated end to end (which means we'll need to > > have each hop along the route tested), or whether we say that this > > down-conversion happens within servers. > > Binary over XMPP has been on my TODO for awhile now, and I have some notes > written up about it but nothing publicized. I think a hop-by-hop approach is > best, if we want to have any hope for compatibility. > > Comments on the two formatting approaches: > > 1) XML element to indicate binary mode: this is probably the least > destructive approach. Keep in mind that we already have an XML to binary > protocol change in XMPP: the TLS and SASL encryption layers. Your XML parser > needs to be able to stop on a dime when it sees that final '>' character, so > asking for that in this discussion should not be a big deal.
Just keep in mind that we don't have a way to change "back". The current change is a very drastic one, like "flush the whole parser state and begin from start". Robin
