W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-exi@w3.org > August 2008

Question: adding AT events to grammar

From: Melanie Stallings <mstallings@gtsoftware.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:31:51 -0400
Message-ID: <C824BFDF0ECA1C49AD16786081A88497485054@gtmail.gtsoftware.com>
To: <public-exi@w3.org>
Dear EXI Experts:

 

I'm using Agile Delta's 30 day trial to see if I'm on track encoding and
decoding Efficient XML.  I've run into something I don't understand.

 

I'm using -n -noschema.

 

Given the xml below Agile Delta DOES NOT add the attribute AT(xsi:nil)
to the grammar.  Why?

 

<root xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">

    <a xsi:nil="true"/>

</root>

 

// This is the binary output from Agile Delta - for convenience.

10010001 01000001 01011100 10011011 

11011011 11011101 00010111 00110100 

                        uri

            a      AT*  hit   found  prefix

000010][01 100001][00 1][11][00000 000][1][0000 

len=4      t         r          u        e

0110][0111 0100][0111 0010][0111 0101][0110 

      ???

0101][0000  - ??? I expected the AT* to be added to the grammar.  But
from the looks of this it was not.  If it was added to the grammar the 0
would mean that we just encountered another AT(xsi:nil).  I'm expecting
an EE.  So I conclude that for some reason the AT event was not added to
the grammar.  My question is why.

 

Given the xml below Agile Delta DOES add the attribute AT(xsi:abc) to
the grammar.  This is what I would expect.

 

<root xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">

    <a xsi:abc="true"/>

</root>

 

     // This is the binary output from Agile Delta - for convenience.

10010001 [01]000001 01011100 10011011 

11011011 11011101 00010111 00110100 

                         uri

           a        AT*  hit   len-1=3    a                 

000010][01 100001][00 1][11][00000 100][01100 

         b          c       len-2=4     t

001][01100 010][01100 011][00000 110][01110 

          r         u          e       EE   EE

100][01110 010][01110 101][01100 101][1000][0]  - This is what I expect.


 

 

The difference seems to be that nil is a default prefix where as abc is
not.  But why does that matter?  I don't understand why the xsi:nil is
not added to the grammar.  

 

Can you show where in the documentation this behavior is specified?

 

Thanks!

 

Melanie

 
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2008 07:10:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:52:43 UTC