W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-exi@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Concise Format for EXI Grammar

From: Yusuke DOI <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:49:47 +0900
Message-ID: <4F581E4B.40503@toshiba.co.jp>
To: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>, public-exi@w3.org

Thanks for clarification. I don't find apparent interoperability problems so far. My concern is the learning cost before make things work. EXI spec is good and clear I think, but still needs certain amount of effort to understand correctly.

When someone just want to make it work in some field, it's far better for him/her if s/he can start from a pre-compiled grammar. It can be implementation specific, but I don't find a reason to avoid some 'non-normative' reference serialization model. And I believe if we want to make more use of EXI in the world (my concern is on embedded systems), make it easy to start is very effective strategy.



(2012/03/08 3:36), Carine Bournez wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 04:49:12AM +0900, Yusuke DOI wrote:
>> Dear EXI gurus,
>> Is there any intermediate format to describe EXI grammar?
>> As I'm working for several EXI-related projects including SEP2, I'm
>> feeling it's very convenient if we can share EXI grammar in well-defined
>> format. The format used in EXI spec is very descriptive, but I guess
>> that grammar notation is for humans.
>> If there's machine-readable (e.g. in plain text or XML) intermediate
>> format for EXI grammars, I believe we can reduce troubles on
>> spec-understanding stage by sharing a good grammar between
>> implementations. Then people can focus on implementations for various
>> devices of their own.
> The EXI 1.0 specification does not define a format to exchange grammars
> between processors. It specifies how to build the grammars in a non-ambiguous
> way, so that a grammar exchange is not needed. The grammar notation used in the
> specification is for implementers of EXI processors and it has no
> machine-readable serialization. In some applications it may be interesting
> to define a serialized format of the grammars in use, but such a format
> would be specific to each use case to suit best the application needs.
> If you encounter particular interoperability issues about grammars, we
> welcome your feedback and will do our best to clarify the specification
> wording.
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 02:50:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:16 UTC