Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> So, my somewhat ignorant question is: why would these WBXML folks go to > the trouble of defining yet another compression scheme for wireless XML? The same reason SOAP was invented, I'd imagine - because in order to justify charging your customers an arm and a leg for a solution, you have to convince them that you're doing something new and valuable, even when you aren't. > Aren't the usual compression techniques available in wireless > toolkits/operating systems? Can XML-specific compression schemes be > implemented in significantly less space than gzip (or LZW, or some other > widely deployed scheme)? Finally, I thought the WAP Forum had learned its > lesson about diverging from standard practice (de facto or otherwise) on > the internet, since the wireless infrastructure will not lag TOO far > behind the rest of the internet, but it takes quite a bit of time to > deploy enough WAP technology to make it worthwhile for enough people to > support it to be worthwhile .... > > Can anyone help sort this out for me? As Tim said, WAP doesn't matter any more. WAP 2 specifies (last time I checked) that TCP + HTTP + XHTML-Basic is a conformant stack. Not that we needed them to tell us that, but it's nice to see them acknowledge their own demise. 8-) MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@p... http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
|
