Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: delimited string inconsistency?

[Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>]

Hi Lofton,

I have a few questions that need to be answered before I can provide
my opinion.

1) Are we talking about the DOM string value? the XCF string value? or
both?

2) I wonder how much importance should be put into parsing the string
values in JS? Who wants to do that? I can see a lot of get/set calls,
but I expect they will be done without the actual parsing ex:

obj1.setAppStructureAttr( "viewcontext", obj2.getAppStructureAttr(
"viewcontext" ) );

3) Would the following string "0  0 100 100" (contains two spaces
between 0  0), give your 'split' method a hard time? Would you end up
with an empty string for one of the strings?

My opinion is that I would like for the XCF string value to be the
same as DOM string value (or else I have to duplicate code). And in
XML, a wsp+ is (#x20 | #x9 | #xD | #xA)+. Thus my preference for
option 2. 

-- 
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

 
Wednesday, May 4, 2005, 10:08:33 AM, Lofton wrote:

LH> All,

LH> Now that I have actually had to use it in a test, let's put
LH> this on thequeue for quick resolution...

LH> At 10:22 AM 4/27/2005 -0500, Don Larson wrote:
LH> [...]
  >> Before fixing table 5.7.6, we ought to decide on this...

LH> I think that delimiting each number requires a lot of extra 
LH> typing by coder and it not as readable as "0 0 100 100"
LH> I think I prefer wsp to commas.

LH> I think everyone probably agrees that it (DOMstring
LH> representation of'viewcontext' and 'region' rectangles) should be
LH> a single string as opposed to a "delimited string" (per WebCGM
LH> 5.5).  The latter is unnecessarily complex for these values.

LH> I don't feel strongly about the separator of the 4 numbers in
LH> the string(i.e., if it is not empty string) -- with the JavaScript
LH> String.split() method, it is not hard to do any of the obvious
LH> options.  For my first test, I just assumed " " (#1 below, single
LH> blank) for expedience.

LH> However, let's agree soon on a standard correct syntax.  Do wewant:

LH> 1.) single blank?   [ "0 0 100 100".split("") is simplest possible code. ]
LH> 2.) wsp as defined in 5.5?  [ (#x20 | #x9 | #xD | #xA)+]
LH> 3.) single comma?  [ "0,0,100,100".split(",") is likewise simplest. ]
LH> 4.) other?  (one or more blanks? comma w/ optional blanks?...?)

LH> Option 2 is user-flexible, but requires a regular expression
LH> as the 'split' argument (which is okay, just more coding).  It
LH> allows things like this:

LH> "0
LH>                                 0
LH>      100    100                                        "
LH> (There are blanks, tabs, and newlines in that string, as allowed by#2.)

LH> I prefer simplest (single blank) but can live with any
LH> unambiguous solution.  Let's decide. 

LH> Thoughts?

LH> -Lofton.