[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: ban 0x09, 0x0A, 0x0D from 'name' ?
Rob's email confirms the resolution (or vice versa). They are out. -- Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com Tuesday, October 4, 2005, 11:36:22 AM, David wrote: CDW> I'll try to get those minutes out shortly...but: CDW> CDW> Issue, wsp in name: CDW> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200509/msg00100.html CDW> Use XML Name attribute content – agree with recommendation CDW> CDW> from my notes CDW> CDW> thx...dave CDW> From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] CDW> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 8:28 AM CDW> To: Benoit Bezaire; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org CDW> Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: ban 0x09, 0x0A, 0x0D from 'name' ? CDW> Dave, do you have the 9/21 telecon minutes? Needed for... CDW> At 10:50 AM 10/4/2005 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote: CDW> Did we get more feedback on this? was it discussed at the telecon? CDW> 9/21, it was on the agenda. From my rough notes, I'm CDW> thinking that we agreed without any dissent. Agreed to what? CDW> Good question... CDW> This is essentially removing any whitespaces from 'name'. CDW> No, blank (0x20) is still allowed, so this is still a valid 'name' ApsAttr value: CDW> "my group of objects" CDW> They would CDW> become deprecated? CDW> That would be the logical thing. But deprecated means: CDW> "prohibited in 2.0 content; legal in 1.0 content, and 2.0 viewers CDW> that support 1.0 must support it." CDW> Another option would be to treat is as an erratum in 1.0. CDW> The practical implications of erratum are probably zero. Has CDW> anyone ever seen a 1.0 file with a 'name' ApsAttr that contains a CDW> newline or tab in the middle of the name? It would be a really CDW> perverse thing to do! Anyone who tries it should not have high CDW> hopes of getting any particular expected result. CDW> -Lofton. CDW> 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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]