-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Please be aware that we had discussions about this four years ago:

http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/compress-exi.html

http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2008-February/017938.html
(and follow-up messages in that thread)

http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2008-March/018185.html

See also more recent discussion:

http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2012-March/006712.html (and
follow-up messages in that thread)

On 3/7/13 7:40 AM, Yusuke DOI wrote:
> 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]>> 
>> Datum: 6 mars 2013 07:32:55 CET Till: XMPP Standards
>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Ämne: [Standards]
>> Question on valid XMPP Svara till: XMPP Standards 
>> <[email protected]<mailto:[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
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> // Yusuke DOI 
>> <[email protected]<mailto:[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:[email protected]>, 
>> www.sust.se<http://www.sust.se> Tel +46
>> 706-442270<tel:%2B46%20706-442270>
>> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=3LVI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to