- From: Cokus, Michael S. <msc@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:01:12 -0400
- To: "public-exi-comments@w3.org" <public-exi-comments@w3.org>, "shimizu.wataru@canon.co.jp" <shimizu.wataru@canon.co.jp>
- CC: "fujisawa.jun@canon.co.jp" <fujisawa.jun@canon.co.jp>, "youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
>EXI specification has a lot of features that can reduce document size. >However it seems too complex for small embedded devices and I will have >to implement partial implementation. Of course it will lose >interoperability. I think additional conformance level or tiny profile >is useful for small devices and interoperability. Is there plan to >define like it? Hello Wataru, thanks for your comments. The importance of a small footprint has been kept in mind while developing the EXI format. The working group has considered the number and complexity of mandatory features (affecting code size) and the initial data that must be available to support the format (affecting initialized data segment size). Additionally, some of our members have successful EXI implementation experience in resource-constrained environments. We concluded, however, that we should not define different levels of conformance to accommodate subsets of EXI capability. Defining the right profiles depends very much upon the use case(s) in mind. The decision as to what capabilities/features could be omitted and which should be retained was best left to the user/implementer. We have tried, though, to make sure that terminology defined in the specification is rigorous enough to discuss EXI features. This should help in discussing what EXI functionality is critical in a given environment and which are not. But we still maintain that a conformant EXI processor must implement the EXI specification in its entirety. We do understand, however, that there may be partial implementations of the EXI specification in use. We want to strongly caution that any restricted profiles for EXI functionality be used sparingly, and in closed environments in which all participants are aware of the supported and unsupported EXI capabilities. It is also critically important that any profiles be compatible with an implementation conformant to the EXI spec. In other words, a standard EXI processor should be able to handle any encoded document that a given EXI profile implementation generates. Thanks again, --mike (on behalf of the EXI WG) Mike Cokus The MITRE Corporation 757-896-8553; 757-826-8316 (fax) 903 Enterprise Parkway Hampton, VA 23666
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 15:01:49 UTC