[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: ban 0x09, 0x0A, 0x0D from 'name' ?
Benoit and Lofton,
As I point out in my Chapter 3 review, T.14.5 prohibits the entire set of C0
control characters except for NUL. So, the decision has already been made.
Section 3.1.1.3 needs some rewriting to clarify this.
-----Original Message-----
From: Benoit Bezaire [mailto:benoit@itedo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 8:50 AM
To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: ban 0x09, 0x0A, 0x0D from 'name' ?
Did we get more feedback on this? was it discussed at the telecon?
This is essentially removing any whitespaces from 'name'. They would
become deprecated?
--
Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com
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]