Talk:Efficient XML Interchange

Notability

I think that this article satisfy the notability guidelines:

• it is a W3C draft about an important subject in the XML technology: the definition of a binary XML format
• there are a lot of companies in the working group: Siemens, Fujitsu, Sun Microsystems, Intel, Nokia, Adobe, IBM, etc... which shows the importance of the subject for these companies. Hervegirod 21:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm removing the notice. —Pengo 22:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that it was added before the first draft was published and at a very early stage of the article —Pengo 23:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Encoding and decoding speeds are both improved with Efficient XML

Please see Frank Hileman (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Other solutions

Please elaborate on how EXI compares to other solutions, such as XMill, XGrind or XQueC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.159.151 (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why was most implementations removed? Including every C/C++ implementation?

This makes EXI seam disadvantageous compared to other Binary XML formats that have more listed implementations.

Also the text was changed stating that two implementations exist, which is not true. I do understand that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this statement makes me think that the other implementations was removed by some other reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.90.83 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the two questions presented above The implementations that exist for C and C++ are faulty. The only solution I have seen in two years that actually works is EXIficient. And EXI isn't only disadvantageous, it's a downright awful binary representation. Nobody uses this standard because the supposed "specification" for it, is incomplete. I've reversed engineered the entire standard myself and my conclusion is that it will never be used except by corporations trying to corner a market by making an incomprehensible and very difficult to encode/decode communication format. As a professional engineer that has had to deal with this for two miserable years because a committee of academic morons have imposed it upon people implementing the DIN and 15118-2 standard, I strongly suggest you use basically anything else, if you have a choice. XML itself is a poor standard, there are no tools that will even validate that an XSD is grammatically correct. Beyond that EXI also doesn't allow anything other than UTF-8, and probably never will, because it will have lukewarm adoption at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.94.93.158 (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)