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

Re: for issues list: ACI DTD and conformance

From: David Cruikshank <dvdcruikshank@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:51:22 -0700
Message-ID: <8fbe8a40904251451l60f04170yff4516e23db078f4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Agreed...adhering to the other requirements of WebCGM 2.1 strengthen the
conformance statement appropriately.

thx...Dave

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>wrote:

> 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
> document?...].
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Lofton.
>
> 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.
>
> thx...Dave
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM, David Cruikshank <dvdcruikshank@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'll give it a shot...
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
> wrote:
>
> ACI DTD and conformance:
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200904/msg00100.html
>
> 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?
>
> -Lofton.
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Config.html#ACI-content
>
>
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII;
> name="WebCGM21-Config_conform_20090424.html"
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
>         filename="WebCGM21-Config_conform_20090424.html"
> X-Attachment-Id: f_ftxbxg230
>
>
Received on Saturday, 25 April 2009 21:51:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 25 April 2009 21:52:00 GMT