Re: [cgmo-webcgm] DOM Exceptions -- unfinished item

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 09:31 AM 10/11/2005 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>Hi Lofton,
>
>I think we can remove the exceptions that are unused (DOM doesn't use
>them either but they've kept them in anyway).

So should we just remove the exceptions 1, 4, 7, leaving the remaining 
numbers the same (and sparse)?  As opposed to collapsing the values to be 
1..6, dense?


>I'm fine with keeping WEBCGMSTRING_SIZE_ERR, it's probably a good one.

Fine with me.


>If my memory is not failing me, we agreed to no exception on
>style/attribute APS, but instead to add wording that out-of-range
>values would be clipped.

That's what I remember also.

-Lofton.


>Monday, October 10, 2005, 7:46:23 PM, Lofton wrote:
>
>LH> All --
>
>LH> Here is a loose end that didn't get entirely reflected in the CD2 text --
>LH> DOM exceptions.
>
>LH> 1.) Stuart did a study, and Benoit commented on it [1]:
>LH> [1]
>LH> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200508/msg00074.html
>
>LH> 2.) Early September, with CD2 drop-dead looming, I asked Benoit for final
>LH> editing directives. He sent a message, I compared to current Editors draft
>LH> spec and found differences. We sorted out some of the differences, but 
>not all.
>
>LH> 3.) Attached HTML table is the current status, CD2 text versus
>LH> Benoit/Stuart recommendations. Notes:
>LH>     * 3 defined exceptions are unused;
>LH>     * no BB/SG position on the single WEBCGMSTRING_SIZE_ERR;
>LH>     * apparent consensus on removal of
>LH> NO_MODIFICATION_ALLOWED_ERR from
>LH> WebCGMNode.setAttributeNS()
>LH> 4.) Did we have a consensus, discussing [1] in telecon, that we would 
>*not*
>LH> define new exceptions for the methods that set SPs and AAs, if either the
>LH> style/attribute did not exist, or if the value was invalid/out-of-range?
>
>LH> Regards,
>LH> -Lofton.