[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: ban 0x09, 0x0A, 0x0D from 'name' ?
Benoit and Lofton, As I point out in my Chapter 3 review, T.14.5 prohibits the entire set of C0 control characters except for NUL. So, the decision has already been made. Section 3.1.1.3 needs some rewriting to clarify this. Rob -----Original Message----- From: Benoit Bezaire [mailto:benoit@itedo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 8:50 AM To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: ban 0x09, 0x0A, 0x0D from 'name' ? Did we get more feedback on this? was it discussed at the telecon? This is essentially removing any whitespaces from 'name'. They would become deprecated? -- Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com Monday, September 19, 2005, 6:30:09 PM, Lofton wrote: LH> Ref: LH> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200509/msg00093.html LH> Comments: 15 LH> ========== LH> Probably not very controversial, but it is a technical change, strictly LH> speaking... LH> QUESTION: should WebCGM fragment syntax ban 0x09, 0x0A, 0x0D from the LH> 'name' production? LH> DISCUSSION: 3.1.1.3, #3, 2nd bullet says, "shall not contain any leading LH> or trailing whitespace (#x09 | #x0a | #x0d | #x20)." Dieter asks, "Does LH> this mean, 0x09, 0x0A or 0x0D are fine in other places [within objname]?" LH> RECOMMENDATION: as Dieter suggests, "They should be banned completely from LH> a name." LH> Comments / objections? LH> Regards, LH> -Lofton.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]