W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > February 2018

Re: CBOR Tutorial

From: Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:48:38 +0100
Cc: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>, Baldur Bjarnason <baldur@rebus.foundation>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "Schindler Wolfgang Dr." <w.schindler@pons.de>, "Davis, Greg" <greg.davis@pearson.com>, Ric Wright <rkwright@geofx.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <67D20B72-24EC-4EAE-B783-C8C71D016D56@gmail.com>
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>

>> On 31 Jan 2018, at 17:58, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> CBOR is a great exchange format for “over the wire” data exchange.   It is not a good format for “off the web” exchange (IMO)
>> 
> 
> Primarily because its optimized for streaming and not random access.  
>  
> Random access is always a better model for data processing but assumes that you have all the data already present (as would you “off the web”).  However, when streaming across a network/the web, you don’t always have the option (yes, there is byte range requests but they aren’t supported in all modern network configs, eg. load balancers).

My understanding is that random access depends on the actual data model being encoded in CBOR?

If I understand correctly, in the bundling spec, the index can be parsed first, and gives you pointers to each individual request/response pair, which effectively enables random access. 
Random access is btw stated as an essential requirement for the packaging spec: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-webpackage-use-cases-00#section-3.1.5 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-webpackage-use-cases-00#section-3.1.5>

Am I missing something?

Romain.
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2018 08:49:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:52:21 UTC