Edit comment LC-2712 for Efficient Extensible Interchange Working Group

Quick access to LC-2705 LC-2706 LC-2707 LC-2708 LC-2709 LC-2710 LC-2711 LC-2712 LC-2713 LC-2714 LC-2715

Comment LC-2712

Comment Shortname:

Commenter: Rumen Kyusakov <rumen.kyusakov@ltu.se>

Message-id:

Section of the document concerned:

[Free text description]Document as a wholeAbstract Status of this Document 1. Introduction 2. Grammar Capping 2.1 Grammar Learning Disabling Mechanism 2.2 Grammar Learning Disabling Parameters 3. Local Value Capping 4. Parameters representation A References B Header Considerations (Non-Normative) C Prefix Workarounds (Non-Normative) D Name Table Workarounds (Non-Normative) D.1 Name Table Encoder Workarounds D.2 Name Table Decoder Workarounds E Grammar Restriction Considerations (Non-Normative) E.1 Grammar Restriction Encoder Considerations E.2 Grammar Restriction Decoder Considerations
or

Refinement of the section concerned:

Status:

open proposal pending resolved_yes resolved_no resolved_partial other assigned to Nobody Bournez, Carine Brutzman, Don Cokus, Michael Fernández, Javier D. Heuer, Joerg Käbisch, Sebastian Kamiya, Takuki Kuntschke, Richard Matsukura, Ryuichi McGregor, Don Peintner, Daniel Quin, Liam Shah, Grishma ZERGAOUI, Mohamed

Type: substantive editorial typo question general comment undefined

Resolution status:

Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter

Response status:

No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):

Comment:

Subject: Unclear
Section: C Prefix Workarounds (Non-Normative)
Paragraph: All
Comments:
All the paragraph could be summarize by saying that the application should use only ONE prefix per
namespace. Then the two requirements are fulfilled.

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes:

Resolution: > All the paragraph could be summarize by saying that the application should > use only ONE prefix per namespace. Then the two requirements are fulfilled. Your statement is actually not entirely equivalent to the statement in the current specification. Let’s take the following example: <A> <B xmlns:ns1=”uri1”/> <B xmlns:ns1=”uri1”/> </A> The following document would match your statement but not the one in the specification. In particular, the second prefix would be encoded as an index. A decoder may not be actually able to give to the XML layer the knowledge for that second namespace declaration. In addition, this requires two namespace declarations, which can be optimized in terms of compression as follow: <A xmlns:ns1=”uri1”> <B/> <B/> </A> That is why we prefer to keep the more restricted statement in the specification.

(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)