Re: Compression and wireless XML
> 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
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format