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

Re: Concise Format for EXI Grammar

From: Stephen Williams <sdw@lig.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 00:20:50 -0800
Message-ID: <4F586BE2.6090102@lig.net>
To: public-exi@w3.org
While not included in the spec, I have always felt that an "externalized metadata object" was important for this and other reasons.  
I continue to feel that it is a mistake that it was left out, but that won't surprise anyone.

Stephen

On 3/7/12 6:49 PM, Yusuke DOI wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>
>


-- 
Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net stephendwilliams@gmail.com LinkedIn: http://sdw.st/in V:650-450-UNIX (8649) V:866.SDW.UNIX 
V:703.371.9362 F:703.995.0407 AIM:sdw Skype:StephenDWilliams Yahoo:sdwlignet Resume: http://sdw.st/gres Personal: http://sdw.st 
facebook.com/sdwlig twitter.com/scienteer
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 08:21:20 UTC

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