W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-exi@w3.org > April 2016

RE: Canonical EXI - CR Review

From: Takuki Kamiya <tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:18:51 -0700
To: "Peintner, Daniel (ext)" <daniel.peintner.ext@siemens.com>, "public-exi@w3.org" <public-exi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <23204FACB677D84EBD57175AB7B5A71C03B436A06250@FMSAMAIL.fmsa.local>
Hi Daniel,

In the final review before requesting CR transition, I have the following

1. In section 3, it says:

A canonical EXI Options document MUST respect the following constraints.

1.The EXI Options elements (i.e. byte, pre-compress, selfContained, valueMaxLength, valuePartitionCapacity, dtd, prefixes, lexicalValues, comments, pis, blockSize, compression, fragment, schemaId, strict) that match the default value (e.g., <blockSize>1000000</blockSize>) MUST be omitted (see EXI specification for default values).

I am not exactly sure what this paragraph means. For instance, byte element
does not per se have a default value. In this sense, <byte/> element cannot 
be omitted. Moreover, it is self-evident that <byte/> cannot be omitted because 
omission makes the setting fallback to bitPacked.

2. In section 4.3.3 Whitespace Handling, it says:

Not in all situations it is possible to respect whitespace handling rules. For example when the grammar in effect is a schema-informed strict-grammar and xml:space is "preserve". The value " 123 " typed as xsd:int cannot preserve the heading and trailing whitespace when typed datatype representation is used.

Is this specific to strict mode?

If we allow the use of typed CH production, the above note should apply to
non-strict case.

3. I think we should have Acknowledgements section in the Appendix
  listing all names of WG members, as well as a few ex-members who
  contributed to the production of this document.

Thank you,

Takuki Kamiya
Fujitsu Laboratories of America

-----Original Message-----
From: Peintner, Daniel (ext) [mailto:daniel.peintner.ext@siemens.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:25 AM
To: public-exi@w3.org
Subject: Canonical EXI - CR Review


With the latest updates I believe we resolved all issues w.r.t. to Canonical EXI.

Before moving to Candidate Recommendation (CR) I ask everyone to do a review of the document [1].

A diff compared to the last call document can be found here [2].


-- Daniel

[1] https://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/docs/canonical/canonical-exi.html
[2] http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http://www.w3.org/TR/exi-c14n/&doc2=https://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/docs/canonical/canonical-exi.html ~
Received on Friday, 1 April 2016 00:19:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:20 UTC