cgmo-webcgm message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: re: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: delimited string inconsistency?
- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- To: <cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 08:08:33 -0600
All,
Now that I have actually had to use it in a test, let's put this on the
queue for quick resolution...
At 10:22 AM 4/27/2005 -0500, Don Larson wrote:
[...]
> Before fixing table 5.7.6, we ought to decide on
this...
I think that delimiting each number requires a lot of extra
typing by coder and it not as readable as "0 0 100 100"
I think I prefer wsp to commas.
I think everyone probably agrees that it (DOMstring representation of
'viewcontext' and 'region' rectangles) should be a single string as
opposed to a "delimited string" (per WebCGM 5.5). The
latter is unnecessarily complex for these values.
I don't feel strongly about the separator of the 4 numbers in the string
(i.e., if it is not empty string) -- with the JavaScript String.split()
method, it is not hard to do any of the obvious options. For my
first test, I just assumed " " (#1 below, single blank) for
expedience.
However, let's agree soon on a standard correct syntax. Do we
want:
1.) single blank? [ "0 0 100 100".split("
") is simplest possible code. ]
2.) wsp as defined in 5.5? [ (#x20 | #x9 | #xD | #xA)+
]
3.) single comma? [ "0,0,100,100".split(",") is
likewise simplest. ]
4.) other? (one or more blanks? comma w/ optional blanks?
...?)
Option 2 is user-flexible, but requires a regular expression as the
'split' argument (which is okay, just more coding). It allows
things like this:
"0
0
100
100 "
(There are blanks, tabs, and newlines in that string, as allowed by
#2.)
I prefer simplest (single blank) but can live with any unambiguous
solution. Let's decide.
Thoughts?
-Lofton.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]