- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:59:32 +0100 (BST)
- To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
> > So in e.g. an HTTP transmission, EXI would > > show up as a Content-Encoding:-option This isn't quite right. If EXI is a content encoding, the result of EXI decoding should be a document of the specified content type, application/xml for example. It should be an octet stream that you can feed to an XML parser. But it isn't, it's an infoset. The difference between XML and EXI is more like the difference between JPG and GIF - you don't decode JPG to get a GIF; they are alternative representations of the same abstract image, and XML and EXI are alternative representations of the same infoset. You could resolve this by saying that in theory an EXI implementation serializes the result to produce an XML document, which is then parsed. The real implementation would then be considered just an optimization. -- Richard
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 14:59:49 UTC