Re: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: ban 0x09, 0x0A, 0x0D from 'name' ?

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Dave, do you have the 9/21 telecon minutes?  Needed for...

At 10:50 AM 10/4/2005 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
> Did we get more feedback on this?
> was it discussed at the telecon?

9/21, it was on the agenda.  From my rough notes, I'm thinking that
we agreed without any dissent.  Agreed to what?  Good
question...


> This is essentially removing any
> whitespaces from 'name'. 

No, blank (0x20) is still allowed, so this is still a valid 'name'
ApsAttr value:
"my group of objects"

> They would
> become deprecated?

That would be the logical thing.  But deprecated means: 
"prohibited in 2.0 content; legal in 1.0 content, and 2.0 viewers
that support 1.0 must support it."  

Another option would be to treat is as an erratum in 1.0.  The
practical implications of erratum are probably zero.  Has anyone
ever seen a 1.0 file with a 'name' ApsAttr that contains a newline or tab
in the middle of the name?  It would be a really perverse thing to
do!  Anyone who tries it should not have high hopes of getting any
particular expected result.

-Lofton.

>  
> Monday, September 19, 2005, 6:30:09 PM, Lofton wrote:
>
> LH> Ref: 
> LH>
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200509/msg00093.html
> LH> Comments:  15
> LH> ==========
>
> LH> Probably not very controversial, but it is a technical change,
> strictly
> LH> speaking...
>
> LH> QUESTION:  should WebCGM fragment syntax ban 0x09, 0x0A, 0x0D
> from the
> LH> 'name' production?
>
> LH> DISCUSSION:  3.1.1.3, #3, 2nd bullet says, "shall not
> contain any leading
> LH> or trailing whitespace (#x09 | #x0a | #x0d | #x20)." 
> Dieter asks, "Does
> LH> this mean, 0x09, 0x0A or 0x0D are fine in other places [within
> objname]?"
>
> LH> RECOMMENDATION:  as Dieter suggests, "They should be
> banned completely from
> LH> a name."
>
> LH> Comments / objections?
>
> LH> Regards,
> LH> -Lofton.