[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Another binary XML approach
- From: "Stephen D. Williams" <email@example.com>
- To: Sean McGrath <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:47:03 -0400
Sean McGrath wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Stefan Zier [mailto:Stefan.Zier@syntion.com]
> >I wasn't saying that every XML applications should have a man in the middle,
> >but as WAP shows, there are applications in which it does make a lot of
> I do a lot of work with WAP and experience with it has turned me off
> binary XML encodings fairly comprehensively. I don't think
> WAP demonstrates the advantage of a binary encoding. I think
> it demonstrates quite the opposite.
WAP's solution is ugly and not at all what I'm proposing.
> My tests repeatedly show that the difference between response
> times of the *same* system serving compact HTML (iMode)
> to an iMode client browser versus WML to a WML
> browser is negligible.
> For my money, iMode got it right. A stripped down HTML with
> plain text - pure as the driven snow - flowing from client to server.
I actually agree with this in most stripped down cases. In fact, DNS
was a bad example of binary since so little data is involved it arguably
should have been text based, or at least more text based.
On the other hand, when something is used frequently enough, anything
more than neccessary is a burden, TCP/IP for example.
Presence/IM has this same binary/text argument between AOL with high
numbers and Jabber with lower numbers and extra features.
Stephen D. Williams
43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax