- From: Peter Waher <Peter.Waher@clayster.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 23:27:11 +0000
- To: "Peintner, Daniel (ext)" <daniel.peintner.ext@siemens.com>, Rumen Kyusakov <rumen.kyusakov@ltu.se>
- CC: "standards@xmpp.org" <standards@xmpp.org>, "public-exi@w3.org" <public-exi@w3.org>
Hello Daniel Thank you for your mail. I'll try to answer your comments one at a time: > Hi Peter, all, > > My feedback comes rather late but I hope it is still useful. All input is welcome. It's not late. > I think having the possibility to upload a compressed XML schema document is very beneficial. That said, I agree with Rumen that in almost any case you need to have Preserve.prefixes on to allow proper decoding. I'll have to check my inbox. It seems I've missed his mail, and have to check his comments. Why do you think preservation of prefixes is necessary to decode an XML schema? Please elaborate. > Also, the differentiation between the two contentType values "ExiBody" and "ExiDocument" is not really necessary. The overhead would just be one byte. ExiDocument would be EXI header + optional EXI options (> more than 1 byte in the general case) + ExiBody. > Instead, I would propose having another alternative that may work well for many use-cases. The current default options point to no schemaId. A very efficient representation on the wire would be the schema for schema definitions [1]. These pre-shared grammars would largely reduce the size of the compressed XML schema stream. Thanks for this input. I've included this in the next revision. > Hope this helps, > > -- Daniel > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.xsd > > External service provider at Siemens AG > 81739 Munich, Germany It certainly does, thanks for the input, Sincerely, Peter Waher
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 23:26:14 UTC