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

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 09:48 AM 10/11/2005 -0700, Galt, Stuart A wrote:
>I am happy to leave there or take out... I figure it is late in the game
>so would support fixing it for 2.1 or later to minimize disruption

In other words, don't remove the unused exceptions?  That is certainly the 
least disruptive option.

For brief discussion on Thursday?

-Lofton.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 8:07 AM
>To: Benoit Bezaire; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] DOM Exceptions -- unfinished item
>
>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
> >LH> text -- 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.ht
> >LH> ml
> >
> >LH> 2.) Early September, with CD2 drop-dead looming, I asked Benoit for
>
> >LH> final editing directives. He sent a message, I compared to current
> >LH> Editors draft spec and found differences. We sorted out some of the
>
> >LH> 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 NO_MODIFICATION_ALLOWED_ERR
> >LH> from
> >LH> WebCGMNode.setAttributeNS()
> >LH> 4.) Did we have a consensus, discussing [1] in telecon, that we
> >LH> would
> >*not*
> >LH> define new exceptions for the methods that set SPs and AAs, if
> >LH> either the style/attribute did not exist, or if the value was
>invalid/out-of-range?
> >
> >LH> Regards,
> >LH> -Lofton.