Re: CBOR Tutorial

Thanks for the pointers Baldur!
Romain.

> On 30 Jan 2018, at 21:12, Baldur Bjarnason <baldur@rebus.foundation> wrote:
> 
> There are a few informative discussions on this in the Web Packaging repository:
> 
> * "Switch to binary format and more." https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/issues/38
> * "Inclusion of binary data into a text-based format" https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/issues/10
> 
> 
> Cited reasons (as far as I can tell):
> 
> * The TAG proposal proved to be more complex to implement than anticipated. Formats like CBOR or DER have pre-existing implementations and are used in other standards so browsers have to support them anyway.
> * A good portion of resources packaged are going to be binaries so a binary format would lead to considerable space savings over a text format
> 
> Because of the ubiquity of compressed/gzipped HTTP responses and how the package stores responses, many text entries in a package will be stored compressed as binaries and not text.
> 
> 
> There’s also a discussion of whether to switch away from CBOR to DER for more secure parsing and better error handling:
> 
> * "Consider switching to DER-encoded ASN.1" https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/issues/47
> 
> But based on that discussion it seems likely that they’ll stick to CBOR as that’s a simpler format.
> 
> 
> Also relevant:
> 
> “Explain why we're not using ZIP” https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/issues/45
> 
> - best
> - Baldur Bjarnason
>  baldur@rebus.foundation
> 
> 
> 
>> On 30 Jan 2018, at 14:33, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Romain,
>> 
>> that is true. But the question is: what is the advantage of using CBOR over simply transferring the original resource data (just like the original document of the TAG proposed)?
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> ---
>> Ivan Herman
>> Tel:+31 641044153
>> http://www.ivan-herman.net
>> 
>> (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 30 Jan 2018, at 20:04, Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 Jan 2018, at 19:11, Schindler Wolfgang Dr. <w.schindler@pons.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Am I right then that for a content document in HTML CBOR only means a 1:1 translation of UTF-8 codes into a binary format that would have exactly the same file size. If this is true, I’m afraid I don’t see (yet?) the connection to Web Packaging and the rationale for exchanging a human-readable format for a binary format. Or do I perhaps miss decisive goodies?
>>> 
>>> With CBOR and Jeffrey’s spec, you can *bundle* resources together and exchange them as one cohesive resource. Since a publication is a *collection* of multiple resources, we need a format to package them.
>>> 
>>> Romain.
>>> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2018 20:31:24 UTC