Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] Question about WebCGM DTD

[Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>]

I think Dieter meant sequence of child nodes instead of sequence of
attributes. Note: no XML specification enforces a specific order for
attributes, it's prohibited.

But what Dieter said also applies to child nodes.

-- 
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

Thursday, February 24, 2005, 10:39:40 AM, Dieter wrote:

DW> Hi Franck,
DW>  
DW> from an interpretation standpoint it doesn't make a
DW> difference which sequence the attributes are in. Something like
DW> this would do the job:
DW>  
DW> while (readAttribute == ok)
DW> {
DW>     if (isWebCGMAttribute(attribute) == TRUE)
DW>         ...process as WebCGM
DW>     else
DW>         ...process as NS attribute
DW>     readNextAttribute
DW> }
DW>  
DW> The sequence is irrelevant for this code.
DW> I wouldn't want to constrain users to a specific sequence in their files.
DW>  
DW> Regards,
DW> Dieter
DW>  
DW> -----Original Message-----
DW> From: DULUC Franck [mailto:franck.duluc@airbus.com]
DW> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:40 AM
DW> To: 'cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org'
DW> Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Question about WebCGM DTD


DW> Benoît,

DW> I think the "limitation" was coming from a vendor point of
DW> view: for simplification of parsing and WebCGM elements
DW> interpretation. For instance in your sample, once you find
DW> anything else than a linkuri you can stop interpretation of any
DW> other elements.

DW> As a user I would say that the "limitation" is acceptable but
DW> removing it could facilitate transltation for viewing from other
DW> DTDs. Yet, I would prefer the way that ensure quality and
DW> availability of implementations.

DW> Regards,

DW> Franck DULUC
DW> Technical Data Research Manager
DW> Customer Services - SDND
DW> AIRBUS France

DW> Phone: +33 (0)5 61 18 19 16
DW> Fax: +33 (0)5 61 93 59 44
DW> mailto:franck.duluc@airbus.com

DW> Address:
DW> BP D0611, 316, route de Bayonne
DW> 31060 TOULOUSE Cedex, FRANCE


DW> -----Message d'origine-----
DW> De : Benoit Bezaire [mailto:benoit@itedo.com]
DW> Envoyé : mercredi 23 février 2005 20:27
DW> À : CGM Open WebCGM TC
DW> Objet : [cgmo-webcgm] Question about WebCGM DTD


DW> The chapter 5 from the Munich meeting is marked with the following
DW> comments from Franck and Dave: "Globally, it seems to me that we should
DW> have some wording/links to justify the content model of our elements.
DW> Clarify why the extensions to the content model occur at the end of
DW> the individual content for each element".

DW> I originally had a hard time understanding what needed to be clarified?
DW> After looking at the DTD in more detail, I think I now understand.
DW> Let's look at 'grobject', its content is currently defined as:

DW> <!ENTITY % grobjectEXT "" >
DW> <!ELEMENT grobject ( linkuri* %grobjectEXT; )>

DW> Hence the comments, but to the best of my knowledge, that's an error,
DW> it should be: 

DW> <!ENTITY % grobjectEXT "" >
DW> <!ELEMENT grobject ( linkuri %grobjectEXT; )* >

DW> Do people remember ever taking the decision that extended elements
DW> must be the last child of its parent element in the XML companion
DW> file.

DW> To me, this should be valid:
DW> <grobject apsId="myId"/>
DW>   <linkuri .../>
DW>   <ben:myElem .../>
DW>   <ben:anotherElem .../>
DW>   <linkuri .../>
DW> </grobject>

DW> If I correct the DTD, is a justification for our content model still
DW> required?