Re: [apps-discuss] +exi

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 13 December 2011 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B797411E809F for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:40:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.882
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.882 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.283, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rtLtGcNhvWh1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:40:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BAEDA11E809B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2011 21:40:36 -0000
Received: from p3EE279D1.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [62.226.121.209] by mail.gmx.net (mp070) with SMTP; 13 Dec 2011 22:40:36 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+NiV0BQxGNfUCV2pogtVN2Ll2Zci2qHcsLEg1tkv K6oE+1/3K3C4JK
Message-ID: <4EE7C64B.8080300@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:40:27 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <4EBBB0EE.8050502@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O88YVG6MQY00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EBCCE76.2090807@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O8AM6GDT5000RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EC0CCAE.5070402@stpeter.im> <01O8EWMK2T8E00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EC2DC42.7010307@stpeter.im> <01O8GE5O3B5K00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DAC31D@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4EC31F1E.6070304@stpeter.im> <8p86c7d6chvadsku6k5dhct20qkl7uk73l@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <4EC326FE.1010809@stpeter.im> <lu96c7hsl37325nn3184ub4vr88qjgja50@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <EDB50792-348B-4693-9FDF-04BA091F8BE9@sensinode.com> <4EE78F2F.2070601@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20111213095846.0b676240@resistor.net> <4EE7C162.9010802@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4EE7C162.9010802@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: paduffy@cisco.com, Thomas Herbst <therbst@silverspringnet.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] +exi
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:40:39 -0000

On 2011-12-13 22:19, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 12/13/11 11:02 AM, SM wrote:
>> At 09:45 13-12-2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> It seems to me that #2 might not be an encoding of the relevant +xml
>>> content type, but might be a different content type, so +exi might be
>>> appropriate.
>>
>> I don't know whether Item B at
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/minutes/yam.txt is relevant to the
>> discussion.
>
> Sort of. :)
>
> The case of gzipped SVG is a good example of an encoding of a content

Well, until people start looking for a content type to map their "svgz" 
files to, or need to embed gzipped SVG into a data URI.

The decision to clarify that "image/svg+xml" isn't useable for that was 
right, but this use case may really required a separate content type.

> type. The case of a binary representation of an XML infoset might be an
> example of a content type (as opposed to a compressed encoding of
> textual XML, which I think we all agree is an encoding of a content
> type). Before IETF 82, I was not aware of the EXI mode that represents
> an XML infoset directly in binary, but some folks there enlightened me,
> so I think there is more subtlety here than was reflected in this thread
> in early November.

I'm not sure that I understand the difference. Both are compression 
formats. One may be specialized for XML, but otherwise?

Best regards, Julian