MWABP: Comment from EXI working group

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

MWABP: Comment from EXI working group

Francois Daoust
Dear participants of the Mobile Web Best Practices working group,

The review period for the Mobile Web Application Best Practices Proposed Recommendation is over. We received one comment sent on behalf of the EXI working group, available at:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2010OctDec/0000.html

We mention EXI as a possible alternative format in 3.4.1.2:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/PR-mwabp-20101021/#bp-conserve-compress
  "alternative compression formats (such as EXI [EXI]) may also provide benefit."

EXI was precisely designed to alleviate some of the usual de-compression costs (e.g. the fact that "very small files generally do not benefit from compression", and the impact on the processor and battery) that are listed in the paragraph that follows. In short, the paragraph seems to suggest that the same costs apply to EXI.

I think that's an oversight which can be fixed with a minor editorial change, namely by moving the sentence mentioned above to the end of the section, slightly reworded to:

"When available, alternative compression formats (such as EXI [EXI]) that do not share some of the above impediments, may provide benefit."

This change would not delay the publication  of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices document as a W3C Recommendation.

Resolution of this last comment should be discussed in a final BPWG call, probably next Tuesday (heads-up email to follow).

Any other views? Do you agree with the proposed change?

Francois.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: MWABP: Comment from EXI working group

Rotan Hanrahan
As this clarification of the wording seems to convey what was originally
intended by the authors, I can see only benefit deriving from the minor
change, and on that basis I see no reason to object to the WG making the
change. The group might want to consider that although (according to the
referenced EXI CR) there is no formal implementation report for EXI,
there is strong evidence [1] for the compression benefits of technology.

[1] http://exificient.sourceforge.net/?id=performance
       
---Rotan.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Francois Daoust
Sent: 25 November 2010 10:54
To: BPWG Public
Subject: MWABP: Comment from EXI working group

Dear participants of the Mobile Web Best Practices working group,

The review period for the Mobile Web Application Best Practices Proposed
Recommendation is over. We received one comment sent on behalf of the
EXI working group, available at:
 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2010OctDec/0000
.html

We mention EXI as a possible alternative format in 3.4.1.2:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/PR-mwabp-20101021/#bp-conserve-compress
  "alternative compression formats (such as EXI [EXI]) may also provide
benefit."

EXI was precisely designed to alleviate some of the usual de-compression
costs (e.g. the fact that "very small files generally do not benefit
from compression", and the impact on the processor and battery) that are
listed in the paragraph that follows. In short, the paragraph seems to
suggest that the same costs apply to EXI.

I think that's an oversight which can be fixed with a minor editorial
change, namely by moving the sentence mentioned above to the end of the
section, slightly reworded to:

"When available, alternative compression formats (such as EXI [EXI])
that do not share some of the above impediments, may provide benefit."

This change would not delay the publication  of the Mobile Web
Application Best Practices document as a W3C Recommendation.

Resolution of this last comment should be discussed in a final BPWG
call, probably next Tuesday (heads-up email to follow).

Any other views? Do you agree with the proposed change?

Francois.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MWABP: Comment from EXI working group

Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group
In reply to this post by Francois Daoust
I support your proposal, Fran├žois.

Dan
--
Daniel Appelquist
Vodafone Group Research & Development
Mobile: +44 7748 111635
[hidden email]

----- Original Message -----
From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
To: BPWG Public <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thu Nov 25 11:53:40 2010
Subject: MWABP: Comment from EXI working group

Dear participants of the Mobile Web Best Practices working group,

The review period for the Mobile Web Application Best Practices Proposed Recommendation is over. We received one comment sent on behalf of the EXI working group, available at:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2010OctDec/0000.html

We mention EXI as a possible alternative format in 3.4.1.2:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/PR-mwabp-20101021/#bp-conserve-compress
  "alternative compression formats (such as EXI [EXI]) may also provide benefit."

EXI was precisely designed to alleviate some of the usual de-compression costs (e.g. the fact that "very small files generally do not benefit from compression", and the impact on the processor and battery) that are listed in the paragraph that follows. In short, the paragraph seems to suggest that the same costs apply to EXI.

I think that's an oversight which can be fixed with a minor editorial change, namely by moving the sentence mentioned above to the end of the section, slightly reworded to:

"When available, alternative compression formats (such as EXI [EXI]) that do not share some of the above impediments, may provide benefit."

This change would not delay the publication  of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices document as a W3C Recommendation.

Resolution of this last comment should be discussed in a final BPWG call, probably next Tuesday (heads-up email to follow).

Any other views? Do you agree with the proposed change?

Francois.