Re: [xml] EXI
- From: Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>
- To: Vladimir Grebenschikov <vova fbsd ru>
- Cc: XML <xml gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [xml] EXI
- Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:13:53 -0500
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
- 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.
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/
] [Thread Prev