Re: [xml] EXI

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:51:13AM +0300, Vladimir Grebenschikov wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 23:35 -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>
> > Now that I have expresed  my concerns about the content of the spec we can
> > look spearately about any libxml2 implementation. I have a few more concerns
> > there:
> >  - those are first working draft specifications, I know how long it takes
> >    to finish such spec when there is no controversy about them, for something
> >    like EXI it may take a couple of years before you get a finished version
> >    (if any), and being an early implementor usually brings you just more pain
> >    e.g XPointer where I implemented the full early spec and only a tiny, 
> >    near useless fraction ended up as a REC.
>
> I would agree and disagree at same time. Yes, it is way of trials and
> error, but if nobody will try to follow new standard It will never
> becomes perfect enough.
>
> >  - who would use it ? I mean EXI target very specialized domain spaces
> >    like embedded or specific processing, would those people actually use
> >    a libxml2 version where the point is more genericity of usage and
> >    the size and portability designs of the library probably don't match
> >    the specific requirements of those use cases.
>
> I can't say for wide range of ppl, but I definitely going to use EXI.
> I've use libxml for several years (in fact since libxml2 appearance).
> And was forced to develop simple internal implementation of something
> like EXI to address similar problems that was addressed by EXI.
>
> >  An implementation just for the sake of being able to claim existence of
> > a widely distributed early implementor doesn't sound to me a good reason 
> > to put EXI in libxml2.
>
> It sounds like a bad news for me.

 You need to be realistic here. You can't use something like EXI for 
serious use before it's a REC, simply because you won't have any garantee
that the final version will be compatible with data encoded now. So any 
implementation before something like a Last Call will be a simple act of 
faith. Still we can discuss potential details here like I did. And I have
been though Last Call of W3C specs in the past which just ended nowhere,
that's not even a guarantee.

Daniel

-- 
Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/
Daniel Veillard      | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine  http://rpmfind.net/