Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-shelby-exi-registration-01.txt

[Carine Bournez <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:04:05PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Let me try to translate this into language pertaining to the discussion at hand:
> 
> EXI can be used as a content-coding for XML documents in "Built-In" mode.
> This would be the usage for the "Content-Encoding: EXI" that has been registered.
> 
> EXI requires out of band information to use the "Schema-Informed" mode.

Not necessarily, see below.

> In the Internet, This would normally be provided in an Internet media-type definition.
> The media-type definition may also want to constrain the allowable values for the numerous options EXI provides, allowing for constrained implementations of EXI.
> 
> No existing application/foo+xml media type provides the latter kind of information.
> With Content-Encoding: EXI, they are therefore limited to "Built-In" mode.
> Any application that needs a tailored, schema-informed version of EXI should therefore register one or more application/foo+exi media types.

If you use the content-encoding and the original media type, let's say svg,
then the schema is the svg schema. There is absolutely no issue in that case.
If foo has an application/foo media type for which the schema is known, 
the application readily knows which schema to use when receiving the EXI
stream with the content-encoding header.

> The next thing we should do is write down a template for all the information that needs to be nailed down in an application/foo+exi media type registration.

I don't think that a +exi system will provide a better solution for the 
Web.


-- 
Carine Bournez -+- W3C Europe