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

Re: Concise Format for EXI Grammar

From: Yusuke DOI <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:49:47 +0900
Message-ID: <4F581E4B.40503@toshiba.co.jp>
To: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>, public-exi@w3.org
Carie,

Thanks for clarification. I don't find apparent interoperability problems so far. My concern is the learning cost before make things work. EXI spec is good and clear I think, but still needs certain amount of effort to understand correctly.

When someone just want to make it work in some field, it's far better for him/her if s/he can start from a pre-compiled grammar. It can be implementation specific, but I don't find a reason to avoid some 'non-normative' reference serialization model. And I believe if we want to make more use of EXI in the world (my concern is on embedded systems), make it easy to start is very effective strategy.

Regards,

Yusuke

(2012/03/08 3:36), Carine Bournez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 04:49:12AM +0900, Yusuke DOI wrote:
>> Dear EXI gurus,
>>
>> Is there any intermediate format to describe EXI grammar?
>>
>> As I'm working for several EXI-related projects including SEP2, I'm
>> feeling it's very convenient if we can share EXI grammar in well-defined
>> format. The format used in EXI spec is very descriptive, but I guess
>> that grammar notation is for humans.
>>
>> If there's machine-readable (e.g. in plain text or XML) intermediate
>> format for EXI grammars, I believe we can reduce troubles on
>> spec-understanding stage by sharing a good grammar between
>> implementations. Then people can focus on implementations for various
>> devices of their own.
>
>
> The EXI 1.0 specification does not define a format to exchange grammars
> between processors. It specifies how to build the grammars in a non-ambiguous
> way, so that a grammar exchange is not needed. The grammar notation used in the
> specification is for implementers of EXI processors and it has no
> machine-readable serialization. In some applications it may be interesting
> to define a serialized format of the grammars in use, but such a format
> would be specific to each use case to suit best the application needs.
>
> If you encounter particular interoperability issues about grammars, we
> welcome your feedback and will do our best to clarify the specification
> wording.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 02:50:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:52:44 UTC