OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC

Re: [ebxml-msg] LZJU90 Compressed Encoding

  • 1.  Re: [ebxml-msg] LZJU90 Compressed Encoding

    Posted 01-13-2003 14:13
     MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    ebxml-msg message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


    Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] LZJU90 Compressed Encoding


    Doug,
    
    I know that HTTP is totally fine with gzip and other binary 
    formats...many web servers even support sending gzipped documents to 
    clients that request it.  I also know that many (most?) SMTP servers 
    support 8 bit, but that cannot be guaranteed.  I was looking for 
    something that I could propose to the group that would work 
    universally, perhaps optionally allowing the SOAP envelope attachment 
    to be compressed as well as payloads via the transfer encoding header.
    
    The reason I was looking at LZJU90 was that it defines compression that 
    encodes.  All the compression algos I looked at produced binary output 
    that would not be SMTP friendly, causing mail servers to feel compelled 
    to do some encoding themselves.
    
    -Matt
    On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 09:53  AM, Doug Bunting wrote:
    
    > Matt,
    >
    > Is this specifically for SMTP?  I'm wondering about the gzip'd HTTP 
    > option.  I'm not sure how widely deployed that option might be but 
    > wonder if a similar option is available now that many (most?) SMTP 
    > implementations are (supposedly) 8 bit clean.  Must admit I'm not sure 
    > the UTF-8 emails I've received were not base64 encoded on the wire.
    >
    > I guess this is a bunch of questions: Are you focused on SMTP?  Does 
    > modern SMTP support a compression option that doesn't require base64 
    > encoding?  Is that option widely available?
    >
    > thanx,
    >    doug
    >
    > Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
    >
    >> On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 11:05  AM, William J. Kammerer 
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Sounds fascinating.  Let us know if you find out more.  But I would
    >>> think it really isn't necessary anymore considering that ZIP is such 
    >>> a
    >>> ubiquitous format - a BASE64 encoded ZIPped attachment serves the 
    >>> same
    >>> purpose, doesn't it?
    >>
    >>
    >> It serves the same purpose, but Base64 adds ~33% to the unencoded 
    >> file size, plus the added CPU overhead of both decoding and 
    >> unzipping.  I'm looking for something better.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >>
    >> Matt
    >>
    >>
    >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
    >> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
    >> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
    >
    
    


    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


    Powered by eList eXpress LLC