W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2009

Re: EXI for HTTP? Re: Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) LC spec addresses ISSUE-30 (binaryXML-30)?

From: John Schneider <john.schneider@agiledelta.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:24:41 -0800
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Message-Id: <639810BC-CCD4-4D29-8567-C166CABB5C40@agiledelta.com>
Cc: "<timbl@w3.org>" <timbl@w3.org>, "<connolly@w3.org>" <connolly@w3.org>, "<www-tag@w3.org>" <www-tag@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Hi Mark,

Not neccesarily. EXI Is just a more compact binary data format. It  
does not dictate a particular data model or API. However, one of the  
advantages of being an XML technology, is that you could use any of  
the existing XML APIs or data models to access the EXI data if they  
were present, familiar or otherwise convenient. Of course, you could  
also leverage other XML technologies like xpath or xquery if desirable.

      Cheers,

      John

Sent from my iPhone 3G

On Dec 13, 2009, at 5:56 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Does this imply that manipulating HTTP headers would need to be done  
> as an Infoset, if this approach were taken?
>
>
> On 08/12/2009, at 4:57 PM, John Schneider wrote:
>
>> Tim,
>>
>> We've done a fair bit of thinking about this and -- surprise,  
>> surprise -- think its a pretty good idea. As you know, EXI is more  
>> than "XML compression". It is a generic technique for encoding just  
>> about any kind of data -- even packed binary protocols -- more  
>> efficiently. However, unlike custom protocols like SPDY, it works  
>> with the XML stack of technologies and XML toolchain. So, rather  
>> than introducing more complexity, more code and another stack of  
>> technologies, it enables more components to leverage the existing  
>> stack -- increasing interoperability and expanding the XML community.
>>
>> Based on my experience, I'm certain an EXI-based approach would be  
>> more efficient than the gzip approach used by SPDY. Let me know if  
>> you'd like to explore this. I'd be happy to discuss and help.
>>
>>    All the best,
>>
>>    John
>>
>>
>> From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
>> Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 12:35:12 -0500
>> Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
>> Message-Id: <BECE1DC9-1EF1-4571-905F-35DCA5B22473@w3.org>
>> To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
>> By the way, has anyone looked at using EXI for HTTP and MIME?
>> Toward solving the problems of always sending the same darn HTTP
>> headers...
>> One wouldn't normally suggest it but as Google seem to think spdy is
>> better in binary, maybe a common interchange format would be a good
>> idea....
>>
>> On 2009-11 -25, at 05:34, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 25, 2009, at 04:32 , Dan Connolly wrote:
>>>> That is: I propose that the EXI spec of 19 Sep
>>>> addresses TAG issue binaryXML-30.
>>>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/30
>>
>>>
>>> Woo-hoo! Are there plans to throw a party of sorts?
>>>
>>>> Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) Format 1.0
>>>> W3C Working Draft 19 September 2008
>>>> NOTE: This is the Last Call working draft.
>>>
>>> Note that this is to be a CR very soon, I believe.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
>>>
>>
>> CTO, AgileDelta, Inc.
>> john.schneider@agiledelta.com
>> http://www.agiledelta.com
>> w: 425-644-7122
>> m: 425-503-3403
>> f: 425-644-7126
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
Received on Monday, 14 December 2009 04:34:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:18 GMT