Re: Decoding?

Daniel,
Thank you for the reply.

I was referring to the working draft.  I agree that deriving the basic 
algorithm for decoding an EXI document is straightforward given the 
encoding algorithm.  The only step, as you say, that I did not find 
straightforward was decompression, so defining that in more detail may 
be helpful.

I suppose I phrased my question badly.  As you said, any detail you 
mention about decoding may  create inconsistencies between the encoding 
and decoding algorithms.  I was curious if there were going to be any 
such inconsistencies, or if what I could derive from the encoding 
algorithms was correct. 

You have answered my question.  My confusion came from there being no 
mention of decoding at all in the current draft.  I think adding a 
sentence saying that deriving the decoding algorithm from the encoding 
algorithm is straightforward would clear this up. 

Thanks,
Christina Leber

Vogelheim, Daniel wrote:
> Hello Christina,
>
> Thanks for taking an interest in EXI!
>
>   
>> I noticed that this draft does not address decoding an 
>> encoded stream.  
>> Is there going to be anything on this topic added in the next draft?
>>     
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you referring to the EXI Format
> Working Draft, or the encoding example, or something else?
>
> In either case, the general idea is that if either encoding or decoding
> is described completely, then the respective other way is implicitly
> defined as well. We expected that for most parts of the spec, the
> mapping from encoding to decoding should be relatively straightforward,
> with the possible exception of the value re-ordering and compression
> step.
>
> Adding both encoding and decoding to a specification is usually
> problematic, since that introduces plenty of opportunities for
> inconsistencies. For an example, there would be no problem, of course.
>
>
> Christina, I think it is rather important that our documents will be
> readily understandable. Could please describe in more detail what
> information you are missing, so that we'd know where we need additional
> clarifications? Thanks.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Daniel Vogelheim
>
>
>