W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-exi@w3.org > December 2015

RE: Support for Canonical EXI interoperability test in TTFMS

From: Alessandro Triglia <sandro@oss.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 13:05:28 -0500
To: "'John Schneider'" <john.schneider@agiledelta.com>
Cc: <public-exi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <03ce01d13dac$8193c770$84bb5650$@oss.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Schneider [mailto:john.schneider@agiledelta.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 12:25
> To: Alessandro Triglia <alessandrot60@live.com>
> Cc: public-exi@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Support for Canonical EXI interoperability test in TTFMS
> 
> Alessandro,
> 
> Its nice to hear from you! Yes, I’d be happy to clarify.
> 
> The purpose of the statement is to precisely and unambiguously identify the
> conditions under which EE is permitted and thus, identify when there are
> two different ways to encode an empty element. When the first condition is
> true (strict=false), there is always a production of the form LeftHandSide
> :  EE available in the current element grammar with an event code of length
> 2 (IAW [1]). When strict is true, there is no production of this form with
> event code of length 2 in the current element grammar and the only time EE
> is available is when there is a production of the form LeftHandSide : EE in the
> current element grammar with event code of length 1. So, the reason why
> the EE event has to have an event code of length 1 is because this is the only
> possibly allowed by the EXI grammars when strict is true. And yes, the
> phrase “current element grammar” is used throughout the EXI spec to
> identify the current non-terminal.
> 
> That said, as I was thinking about your question it struck me that there is a
> better way to express this condition. In particular, we could just say:
> 
> “When the current element grammar contains a production of the
> form LeftHandSide : EE, EXI can represent the content of an empty element
> explicitly as an empty CH event or implicitly as a SE event immediately
> followed by an EE event. In these circumstances, Canonical EXI MUST
> represent an empty element by a SE event followed by an EE event.”
> 
> I think this would be an even simpler, more general and perhaps clearer way
> to specify this rule in the spec. 


Yes, that is clearer. Thanks.

Alessandro
Received on Wednesday, 23 December 2015 18:05:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 23 December 2015 18:05:58 UTC