Re: [cgmo-webcgm] WebCGM 2.0 DTD?

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 09:46 AM 12/13/2005 -0700, Robert Orosz wrote:
>Lofton,
>
>Now that CS text is finished and published, shouldn't the DTD be published
>also?

We are apparently on the same wavelength today -- I was just working on it 
and was about to mail this to the TC...

QUESTION 1 (important):  The attached file is exactly as extracted from the 
end of Ch.4.  What I'm going to put at the below URL is the attached file 
except:
i.) remove the first two lines
ii.) remove the last line and the "]" from the 2nd last line.
Agreed?

>It is not at the URI listed in the CS text.
>
>http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/webcgm20.dtd
>
>Validating parsers will need to load this before they parse the XCF.

QUESTION 2 (minor):  Section 4.2 contains:
a.) PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD WebCGM 2.0//EN"
b.) <!DOCTYPE webcgm PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD WebCGM 2.0//EN" 
"http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/webcgm20.dtd";>

Should the hyphen (-) in the PUBLIC identifier, now be a plus 
(+)?  According to ERH, "If a non-ISO standards body has approved the DTD, 
its name begins with a plus sign.  If no standards body has approved the 
DTD, its name begins with a hyphen."  This is a small and inconsequential 
detail, but does its status in OASIS warrant "approved the DTD"?  Or would 
only "OASIS Standard" warrant that?

Regards,
-Lofton.

webcgm20.dtd