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

[Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>]

Hi Lofton,

So are you still convinced that a single string is better than a
delimited string for the 'region' attribute? I am not.

It seems like we would be re-inventing a single string syntax for this
particular attribute when we've define a syntax to handle these kinds
of problems (i.e., delimited strings).

-- 
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

 

Wednesday, May 4, 2005, 10:24:53 AM, Lofton wrote:

LH> At 04:13 PM 5/4/2005 +0200,
LH> =?us-ascii?Q?Dieter__Weidenbruck?=wrote:
LH> 1looks good to me.
LH>  
LH> How would that work for aregion that consists of multiple bezier paths?
LH> A simple chain of numbers withspaces then?


LH> Oh, good point.  In my haste I was just thinking of rectangularregions.

LH> Yes, any valid 'region' definition is just a list of numbers,
LH> sosingle-blank separating works fine.  The numbers naturally fall
LH> intosubgroups, if there are sub-regions.  The first number (region
LH> type)tells you how many coordinate numbers follow;  then the
LH> nextregion-type number tells you ... blah ... blah.  So it is
LH> still veryeasy to deal with.

LH> -Lofton.

LH>  
LH>  
LH> -----Original Message-----

LH> From: Lofton Henderson[mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]

LH> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 4:09 PM

LH> To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org

LH> Subject: re: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: delimited stringinconsistency?



LH> All,



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



LH> At 10:22 AM 4/27/2005 -0500, Don Larsonwrote:




LH> [...]

  >> Before fixing table 5.7.6, we ought to decide onthis...



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 asopposed to a "delimited string" (per WebCGM
LH> 5.5).  Thelatter is unnecessarily complex for these values.



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