W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-exi-comments@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Response to [LC-2712]

From: Rumen Kyusakov <rumen.kyusakov@ltu.se>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:38:41 +0100
To: public-exi-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <1352716721.1923.34.camel@rumkyu-desktop>
Hi Youenn, 

Thank you for the explanation!
Now I understand the "C Prefix Workarounds (Non-Normative)" section and
agree that it should be kept as it is.

-- 
Best Regards,
Rumen Kyusakov
PhD student 
EISLAB, Luleå University of Technology


On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 09:57 +0000, FABLET Youenn wrote:
> Hi Rumen,
> 
>  
> 
> Here is the working group response to your comment.
> 
> Please let us know whether you agree with the changes.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
>                 Youenn
> 
>  
> 
> > Subject: Unclear
> 
> > Section: C Prefix Workarounds (Non-Normative)
> 
> > Paragraph: All
> 
> > Comments:
> 
> > All the paragraph could be summarize by saying that the application
> should use only ONE prefix per
> 
> > namespace. Then the two requirements are fulfilled.
> 
>  
> 
> Your statement is actually not entirely equivalent to the statement in
> the current specification.
> 
> Let’s take the following example:
> 
> <A>
> 
> <B xmlns:ns1=”uri1”/>
> 
> <B xmlns:ns1=”uri1”/>
> 
> </A>
> 
> The following document would match your statement but not the one in
> the specification.
> 
> In particular, the second prefix would be encoded as an index.
> 
> A decoder may not be actually able to give to the XML layer the
> knowledge for that second namespace declaration.
> 
> In addition, this requires two namespace declarations, which can be
> optimized in terms of compression as follow:
> 
> <A xmlns:ns1=”uri1”>
> 
> <B/>
> 
> <B/>
> 
> </A>
> 
> That is why we prefer to keep the more restricted statement in the
> specification.
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 10:39:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:45:28 UTC