On Nov 9, 2007 7:37 PM, Rachel Blackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Facetious comments aside, my point is that if we're talking about > modifying how the XMPP parser works, why bother doing things halfway > with little workarounds? Throw out XMPP 1.0 entirely and come up with > an extensible 2.0 binary protocol. > If we like to chant the 'XMPP is not really XML' mantra and the 'we > must shave off every byte we can to spare the poor mobile users' > mantras, that's great. But considering we only have 3 actual main > stanza types, a purely binary (and not necessarily XML-related) > protocol would be more efficient.
That's exactly my point: XMPP 1.0 is good for desktop clients, and at present for a series of reasons I've already talked about I prefer BOSH for mobiles, but an extensible binary xml protocol would be the best of both worlds. > I think we've lost sight of whatever the original problem we were > trying to solve was (inline images? Size of binary blobs to mobiles?) > and have become caught up in hypothetical solutions which may no > longer be directly connected to the issue. :) One more good reason for using BOSH with mobiles: you can fix very quickly the binary data issue offering the decoded, more compact, data on the same channel, accessing it using a different path in the request. The change would be almost trivial, leaving the time for a decent binary XMPP 2.0 -- Fabio Forno, PhD Istituto Superiore Mario Boella Jabber ID: xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Try Jabber http://www.jabber.org
