W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-exi-comments@w3.org > January 2009

RE: [LC-2185] RE: Question about EXI Draft - XML declaraion

From: Taki Kamiya <tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:09:22 -0800
To: "'TAMIYA Keisuke'" <tamiya.keisuke@canon.co.jp>, <public-exi-comments@w3.org>
Cc: <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>, <fujisawa.jun@canon.co.jp>
Message-ID: <487B6B83A099489CA99B778B5A4BF19D@cataroimo>

Hi Tamiya-san,

We will describe those rationale in the next draft albeit concisely.

Thanks for your suggestion!

-taki


-----Original Message-----
From: TAMIYA Keisuke [mailto:tamiya.keisuke@canon.co.jp]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:52 PM
To: Taki Kamiya; public-exi-comments@w3.org
Cc: youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr; fujisawa.jun@canon.co.jp
Subject: Re: [LC-2185] RE: Question about EXI Draft - XML declaraion


Hi Taki-san, and WG members,
Thank you for your detailed response.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:12:06 -0800
"Taki Kamiya" <tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Yet, we understand that there are use cases where the use of a particular
> version of XML is required when serializing infoset into XML. On such
> occasions, it is the program that subsequently consumes the serialized XML
> that calls for a particular XML version. We consider XML version as the
> artifact of XML serialization, and therefore is the function of XML
> serializer implementations, instead of being something that has to be
> inherited from the source XML if any that was fed into the computing chain
> as an input.

Yes, I thought about this case, and I understand you.
But I think you had better describe the reason if you drop a part of the
XML Infomation Set. Because in section 1.1 and section 2 "Design
Principles" in the draft, you describe compatibility with the XML
Information Set .

Regards,
Keisuke Tamiya
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2009 00:10:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 January 2009 00:10:49 GMT