W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > February 2011


From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:31:32 +0100
Cc: public-html-xml@w3.org
Message-Id: <E853FBFC-5A15-4B55-B480-05E065B1C24C@berjon.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
On Feb 10, 2011, at 16:19 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:13:53 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
>> But I can't make my mind up. WDYT?
> EXI seems like just another syntax to get a DOM. XHTML and HTML already pretty much generate the same DOM so if EXI is compatible with either this should already work, no?

I think that the potential difference lies in the production method. I don't think that cases in which people will be writing EXI directly will be common (certainly not by hand), so we have a situation where you have HTML -> EXI -> DOM. EXI is (or at least can be) a lossy compression format, so things will get dropped from the HTML. In effect, it includes some amount of DOM transformation.

But I still don't know if that's enough of a difference to justify a UC.

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 15:32:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:27 UTC