W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: for issues list: ACI DTD and conformance

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:43:17 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Hi Dave,

This is a great improvement, thanks!

One question...

You propose that the entire conformance statement could be, "A file is a 
conforming WebCGM 2.1 ACI document if it is a valid instance corresponding 
to the ACI DTD."

Are we being too hasty in eliminating all pieces of the existing statement, 
"A file is a conforming WebCGM 2.1 ACI document if it adheres to the 
specifications described in this (WebCGM 2.1) document, including those in 
the WebCGM 2.1 ACI DTD, and in addition:..."  A similar statement prefaces 
the conformance bullet items for XCF.

The part that interests me is:  "...if it adheres to the specifications 
described in this (WebCGM 2.1) document,"  There seem to be conformance 
criteria in Ch.9 that aren't measured by "valid" (i.e., DTD-valid).  For 
example, the CDATA 'useFont' attributes says, "...except that useFont shall 
have exactly one font-family name or generic name in its list," and this is 
not represented in the DTD.  Similarly for things like 'dashLength', etc.

In fact, throughout the chapter there are attribute and element conformance 
requirements that are not representable in the DTD.  I thinking that there 
should be two statements:  must be valid (your statement); and must adhere 
to all other specifications [...in this chapter? and/or this WebCGM 2.1 



At 01:22 PM 4/24/2009 -0700, David Cruikshank wrote:
>For discussion during the vF2F on a conformance statement for ACI files.
>I actually just added the identifiers and simplified the conformance to 
>state that it must be "valid" as defined in XML.
>On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM, David Cruikshank 
><<mailto:dvdcruikshank@gmail.com>dvdcruikshank@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I'll give it a shot...
>>On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Lofton Henderson 
>><<mailto:lofton@rockynet.com>lofton@rockynet.com> wrote:
>>>ACI DTD and conformance:
>>>I think there is general agreement that that section 9.2 [1] is 
>>>under-specified compared to what it ought to contain.
>>>Dave, would you be willing to draft and circulate changes, for us to 
>>>discuss and approve next week?
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII; 
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
>         filename="WebCGM21-Config_conform_20090424.html"
>X-Attachment-Id: f_ftxbxg230
Received on Saturday, 25 April 2009 20:44:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:41 UTC