Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: must every XCF identify its version?

[Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>]

I don't have a strong opinion about this... I (personally) do not
believe that these steps are of much help (if any), but I will not
oppose this proposal. I'll let other speak on what they believe is
best for interoperability.

I'm unsure if this stuff should be in the 'conformance' section, or if
a sentence such as "authors SHOULD include a DOCTYPE referencing its
DTD in all XCF" suffice.

-- 
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

 
Friday, June 10, 2005, 2:36:18 AM, Dieter wrote:

DW> I agree with your proposal.
  
DW> -----Original Message-----
DW> From: Lofton Henderson   [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
DW> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 12:41   AM
DW> To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
DW> Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: must every XCF identify its   version?


DW> Source:  Editors.

DW> ISSUE:  must   every XCF instance identify its version?

DW> In ch.4, the examples 4.1,   4.2, 4.3 show <webcgm> tags
DW> without 'version' attributes.  The   examples also start and end
DW> with the <webcgm> and </webcgm>   tags  (except 4.2 with a piece
DW> of internal DTD subset defining an   extension element, which btw
DW> looks to me like wrong syntax.)  The   examples do not show the
DW> XML declaration, and do not show a DOCTYPE (which   presumably
DW> would contain an external reference to the WebCGM XCF DTD.)   
DW> [Side suggestion:  make the examples be complete xml files.]

DW> In   4.2, the DTD defines:  version CDATA #fixed 2.0

DW> So if the   XCF instance contained a DOCTYPE referencing the
DW> DTD, the version would be   defined.  (#fixed means:  if 'version'
DW> is present, it must be 2.0;   if not present, 2.0 is the default).

DW> If an XCF instance contains   neither a DOCTYPE nor 'version'
DW> attribute on <webcgm>, then its version   is unknown.

DW> Question.  Is WebCGM 2.0 going to allow such   un-versioned
DW> XCF instances to be conformant?

DW> Alt.1:  no, fix the   current ch.4 text.
DW> Alt.2:  yes

DW> RECOMMENDATION:  Alt.1, no   -- every conforming XCF must somehow identify its version.

DW> If Alt.1 is   accepted, then "how"?  There are several ways
DW> to achieve it, here's one   proposal...

DW> PROPOSAL.  1.) Require that every conforming XCF must  
DW> contain a DOCTYPE referencing its DTD (and may also have internal
DW> DTD subset   for extensions, of course).  And, 2.) Recommend that
DW> the 'version'   attribute be used on the root element (<webcgm>). 
DW> I know that #2   is redundant with #1, but there are circumstances
DW> and scenarios where it is   convenient to have the information
DW> there in the XCF instance, instead of in   some remote referenced
DW> resource (the DTD).

DW> Regards,
DW> -Lofton.