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 15:36:53 -0700
Message-ID: <8fbe8a40904251536w6fc6d174o9aaea716519badf8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
I updated it words...

thx...Dave


On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:51 PM, David Cruikshank
<dvdcruikshank@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 22:37:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 25 April 2009 22:37:36 GMT