AW: RE: ISSUE-95: Some points for future improvements after FPWD

Hi Taki, all,

> I took a look at Youenn's comments [1] on Canonical EXI FPWD draft.

Thank you for looking into the remaining issues.

> With regards to section 4.4 Stream Order, YF wrote:
>
>> The note about insignificant xsi:type may also be illustrated with
>> xsi:type=xsd:anyType profile case.
>
> I would recommend to add xsi:type="xsd:anyType" as an example.

I added the following text to the note

"For example, EXI Profile uses the xsi:type attribute (e.g., xsi:type="xsd:anyType") to switch to a non-evolving schema-informed grammar."

I hope this helps to resolve this issue.

> With regards to section 4.5.6 String and String Table, YF wrote:
>
>> a bit fuzzy. Maybe it should be added that the convention must be agreed
>> by both parties or even stronger requirements (must be able to express the
>> convention within EXI options for instance?).
>
> In section 4.5.6, there is a description:
>
> "Unless the convention used by the application dictates differently
> (e.g., EXI Profile parameter localValuePartitions set to "0"),"
>
> I suggest to modify it as follows.
>
> "Unless a convention was indicated in Canonical EXI Options (with link to
> section 2.1) by an application to dictate differently (e.g., EXI Profile
> parameter localValuePartitions set to "0"),"

Makes perfect sense to me. I modified the description as proposed (see [1]).

Thanks,

-- Daniel

[1] https://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/docs/canonical/canonical-exi.html