Re: DRAFT XML Core WG review of Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) Format 1.0

Grosso, Paul scripsit:

> But what about the bigger picture.  I assume EXI is a (different from
> XML 1.x) way to serialize an XML infoset -- is this correct?  Does EXI
> describe the same set of infosets as XML 1.x?

Correct.  It has a comprehensive mapping to and from the Infoset, with
the exception of the [character encoding scheme], [standalone], and
[version] properties of the document information item.  There is also
a set of four "fidelity bits" which can be turned off to indicate that
certain information has been suppressed:  comments, PIs, the DOCTYPE
and undeclared entity referenes, and namespace prefixes.

EXI also distinguishes between "basic" and "schema-informed" documents.
If schema information is available (currently only out of band) and
the fifth fidelity bit (lexical values) is turned off, then element and
attribute values of known simple types are represented compactly
rather than as character strings.   The types are base64Binary/hexBinary,
boolean, dates and times, float/double, decimal, integer, string,
and list.

> Is EXI something the XML Core WG should support, allow, or argue
> against?

I'd say either "support" or "allow".

-- 
John Cowan   cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
If a soldier is asked why he kills people who have done him no harm, or a
terrorist why he kills innocent people with his bombs, they can always
reply that war has been declared, and there are no innocent people in an
enemy country in wartime.  The answer is psychotic, but it is the answer
that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history.  --Northrop Frye

Received on Monday, 20 August 2007 20:18:47 UTC