Are you with 802.15.4 reffering to 6lowpan networks. Then I'm also doing work in the area with SICS.se in Sweden so yes would be interesting working with that.
/joachim 2013/3/7 Yusuke DOI <[email protected]> > Dear Peter, > > Yes, for sensor networks such as one on 802.15.4, XMPP/EXI should be a > good choice (if we can implement it efficiently). Please let me join your > effort. Thanks! > > > // Yusuke DOI <[email protected]> Corporate R&D Center, TOSHIBA > Corp. > > > (2013-03-07 20:55), Peter Waher wrote: > >> Hello Yusuke >> We have been experimenting with EXI and find it an exceptional and >> efficient way to compress XML. We want to use it in sensor networks, where >> RAM and packet size is an issue. We hope to, within our effort to create >> XEPs for sensor networks, to include a XEP for EXI enablement of XMPP >> communication. If you want to join us in this work, you're welcome. >> Note to XSF members: Anybody interested in participating in such an EXI >> XEP, please contact me. >> Sincerely, >> Peter Waher >> >> Från: Yusuke DOI <[email protected]<**mailto: >> [email protected].**jp <[email protected]>>> >> >> Datum: 6 mars 2013 07:32:55 CET >> Till: XMPP Standards >> <[email protected]<mailto:sta**[email protected]<[email protected]> >> >> >> >> Ämne: [Standards] Question on valid XMPP >> Svara till: XMPP Standards <[email protected]<mailto:sta** >> [email protected] <[email protected]>>> >> >> Hi, >> >> My name is Yusuke Doi. I'm wondering if it is possible to put EXI[1] with >> XMPP. >> >> During my experiment to encode some XML instances captured from my >> tcpdump to EXI, I have got unique particle attribution (UPA) problem as >> described in [2]. >> Although EXI works with schemaless XML, it's far better to use >> schema-informed EXI in terms of efficiency and validation. Schema-informed >> EXI is for valid XML, but current spec does not allow validation due to >> UPA. Changing local schema (suggested by Peter in [2]) breaks >> interoperability of schema-informed EXI. >> >> Is there any possible way to make a 'valid XMPP spec' with some >> (backword-compatible) specification update? I guess there are three choices. >> >> 1) change XMPP schema/spec to avoid UPA. This may break inteoperability. >> 2) use different XMPP schema for EXI communications. This looks awkward. >> 3) use XSD 1.1 for weak wildcard. I'm not sure XMPP community wants/hates >> 'cool' features of XSD 1.1. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/exi/ >> [2] >> http://mail.jabber.org/**pipermail/jdev/2012-June/**089069.html<http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/2012-June/089069.html> >> >> Regards, >> >> // Yusuke DOI <[email protected]<**mailto:[email protected].** >> jp <[email protected]>>> Corporate R&D Center, TOSHIBA Corp. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Hälsningar >> >> Joachim Lindborg >> Teknisk Chef >> >> Sustainable Innovation AB >> Adress: Box 55998 102 16<tel:55998%20102%2016> Stockholm >> Besöksadress: Storgatan 31 (Malmgården) >> Email: >> [email protected]<**mailto:Joachim.lindborg@sust.**se<[email protected]>>, >> www.sust.se<http://www.sust.se**> >> Tel +46 706-442270<tel:%2B46%20706-442270> >> >> > > -- Hälsningar Joachim Lindborg Teknisk Chef Sustainable Innovation AB Adress: Box 55998 102 16 Stockholm Besöksadress: Storgatan 31 (Malmgården) Email: [email protected], www.sust.se Tel +46 706-442270
