W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Two new drafts: Multipart/Interleaved and Application /BatchBeep

From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 08:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200104231511.f3NFB3b409821@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Cc: don@lexmark.com, discuss@apps.ietf.org

> Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu
> From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:40:29 -0400
> To: don@lexmark.com
> Cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, discuss@apps.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Two new drafts: Multipart/Interleaved and Application /BatchBeep
> -----
> > "An environment that is so
> > bandwidth constrained that base64 is an onerous amount of overhead
> > probably shouldn't be using either MIME or XML framing either - it should
> > probably be using some binary protocol that does framing, multiplexing,
> > and lossless data compression all at the same time (since they interact
> > with one another)."
> >
> > Tell me about it!!!!!  But if it doesn't use XML it isn't kewl and therefore
> > is unacceptable!  I proposed binary and was shot down immediately by the
> > "politically correct" XML!
> 
> the folks who blindly recommend XML for everything are the ones who should
> be lined up and shot - perhaps not with lethal weapons (though it is
> tempting) but maybe with big darts that have "stupid" flags attached.
> (to warn everyone else of their presence)
> 
>

While I agree with your sentiments, remember that XML run through compression
ends up alot more compact than one naively thinks, as the tags compress
very well indeed.

Having dealt with both flavors of protocols, each have their place: the
problem is an education one to use the right tool in the right place.
				- Jim

--
Jim Gettys
Technology and Corporate Development
Compaq Computer Corporation
jg@pa.dec.com
Received on Monday, 23 April 2001 11:14:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:01 UTC