Closed shschaefer closed 1 year ago
There are many other types defined by the frameworks listed in the specification. Is the goal to provide an interface which is a superset of these types or simply represent the most common. For example, many of the quantized types are primarily used internally, not at the input/output boundary.
I think "most common" is the best approach for now, especially if the rarer ones are only used internally.
In testing this interface with commonly available models, there are data types missing in the specification. I have added here both integer and floating point 64-bit types as these are defined in the WASM specification as native types.
There are many other types defined by the frameworks listed in the specification. Is the goal to provide an interface which is a superset of these types or simply represent the most common. For example, many of the quantized types are primarily used internally, not at the input/output boundary.