On Nov 7, 2007 1:56 PM, Dave Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes, base64 is acceptable here, although bear in mind that over a > charged-by-transfer medium - such as many mobile phone tariffs - that > 100k image is transferred as 133k, and 33k that you didn't really > need to transfer sounds like an additional cost we could drop if we > had the technology to do so. It's not a driver for it, though, I > agree.
We're developing a mobile client and we think that kind of information should be threated in a different manner. In mobiles networks regular socket connections have many problems (mainly disconnection handling that forces a new login) and therefore we prefere bosh based connections. Bosh has also the advantage that it may act more intelligently than a simple proxy: the connector could be an agent shaping information in more a suitable way for the mobile client (optimized compression, caching, sending only the diffs of some data as rosters, avatars...). Moreover large amounts of binary data exchanaged with mobiles are very unlikely, so I don't see the necessity of making xml streams more complex for use cases that are not well defined, if not improbable. What would be nice (and we're making some thoughts about it) is binary bosh binding, with binary xml and binary data if necessary. Binary xml + compression is by far the most bandwidth efficient way for exchanging xml and it may have the not trascurable advantage of being able to implement parsers in very small clients (e.g. pic based nodes in sensor networks). IMHO this is the only approach allowing full compatibility with existing installations and ibb binary data for the few clients that really need it. For regular socket based clients, as others have already pointed out, there always alternatives and ibb is the fallback for the few clients / applications that cannot do otherwise. -- Fabio Forno, PhD Istituto Superiore Mario Boella Jabber ID: xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Try Jabber http://www.jabber.org
