Posted by
Hemos
on from the reduce-reuse-recycle dept.
GFD writes: "The EETimes has a story about a relavtively old protocol for structured information call ASN.1 could be used to compress a 200 byte XML document to 2 bytes and few bits. I wonder if the same could be done with XHTML or even regular HTML."
They don't build 'em like they used to.
by
pjbass
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
When you look at it, it's pretty cool to see that protocols that go back many years (Ethernet for example) just keep coming back with positive results, and scale way beyond what they were ever intended for in their respective RFC. What happened to most current protocols developed recently? Exchange is one that comes to mind...
Re:They don't build 'em like they used to.
by
Garpenlov
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
What happened to most current protocols developed recently? Exchange is one that comes to mind...
I'm not sure what protocol you're referring to when you say Exchange. Are you talking about, perchance, Microsoft Exchange Server? The one that uses X.400 for site-to-site communication? The X.400 that uses ASN.1 encoding?
-- ---
Where's my X.400 protocol decoder?
Hello, haven't we read Comer's book?
by
Karpe
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I believe it was Internetworking with TCP/IP, or perhaps Tanenbaum's Computer Networks, and the "conclusion" of the chapter on SNMP (which uses ASN.1) was that today, it is much more important to make protocols that are simple to handle, than stuff that conserves bandwidth at the price of performance, since the "moore's law for bandwidth" is stronger than the "moore's law for cpu power". You could use (and already uses) compressed communication links, anyway.
This is the same philosophy of IP, ATM, or any modern network technology. Simple, but fast.
Multimedia?
by
starseeker
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Isn't most of the bandwith on the internet is consumed by multimedia - images, music files, and the odd video? I have seldom encountered an html file larger than a meg, and even those are in my experience very rare.
Yes, it would be nice to make the internet move faster with current technology, and I would support this for people on very slow connections. It might also be a boon for servers that get hit hard and often (though I doubt it would stop the Slashdot effect;-) For the majority of single use internet concerns, however, I just don't see this doing a whole lot.
Of course, I hope I'm wrong. More effective bandwith is a Good Thing.
-- "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Re:ASN.1 not suitable
by
vsync64
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Once (!) you've got that schema, subsequent messages can be very terse. (Without the schema you can still figure out the structure of the data, but you don't know what its for).
Heh. How is this different from XML?
I'm always amused by people that assume XML will be the magic lingua franca of the Internet and everyone will be able to parse every last bit of meaning out of your document just because it's encased in <handwaving><readable by="human"><tags/></readable></handwaving> without ever agreeing on any of those nasty "standards" things. Guess what, people: until we have a solution to the strong AI problem, human readable don't mean squat.
-- TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Slashdot Mirror
When you look at it, it's pretty cool to see that protocols that go back many years (Ethernet for example) just keep coming back with positive results, and scale way beyond what they were ever intended for in their respective RFC. What happened to most current protocols developed recently? Exchange is one that comes to mind...
I believe it was Internetworking with TCP/IP, or perhaps Tanenbaum's Computer Networks, and the "conclusion" of the chapter on SNMP (which uses ASN.1) was that today, it is much more important to make protocols that are simple to handle, than stuff that conserves bandwidth at the price of performance, since the "moore's law for bandwidth" is stronger than the "moore's law for cpu power". You could use (and already uses) compressed communication links, anyway.
This is the same philosophy of IP, ATM, or any modern network technology. Simple, but fast.
Isn't most of the bandwith on the internet is consumed by multimedia - images, music files, and the odd video? I have seldom encountered an html file larger than a meg, and even those are in my experience very rare.
;-) For the majority of single use internet concerns, however, I just don't see this doing a whole lot.
Yes, it would be nice to make the internet move faster with current technology, and I would support this for people on very slow connections. It might also be a boon for servers that get hit hard and often (though I doubt it would stop the Slashdot effect
Of course, I hope I'm wrong. More effective bandwith is a Good Thing.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Heh. How is this different from XML?
I'm always amused by people that assume XML will be the magic lingua franca of the Internet and everyone will be able to parse every last bit of meaning out of your document just because it's encased in <handwaving><readable by="human"><tags /></readable></handwaving> without ever agreeing on any of those nasty "standards" things. Guess what, people: until we have a solution to the strong AI problem, human readable don't mean squat.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.