Re: [cgmo-webcgm] RE: sub-string hotspotting, for final approval

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Yes, I agree about the "+".  That was our decision and it got lost in my 
editing.

Thanks,
-Lofton.

At 03:56 PM 6/6/2007 -0700, Galt, Stuart A wrote:
>Lofton,
>
>Looks good but I think we should change <substring object> slightly to:
>
><substring object> ::=
>         <BEGIN APPLICATION STRUCTURE>
>         <application structure descriptor>
>         <BEGIN APPLICATION STRUCTURE BODY>
>         <simple substring> +                     <---- this should be
>repeatable
>         <END APPLICATION STRUCTURE>
>
>But other than that it looks good to me.
>
>Stuart.
>--
>Stuart Galt
>SGML Resource Group
>stuart.a.galt@boeing.com
>(206) 544-3656
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 3:45 PM
> > To: Galt, Stuart A
> > Cc: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: sub-string hotspotting, for final approval
> >
> > It turned out to be a little messier than we thought, but
> > here is the final take (hopefully).  Stuart, please check
> > that it says what we intended.
> >
> > FYI, the messiness arose because of the recursion around the
> > <spanned text> element -- conceptually, it makes the
> > definition of sub-string APS impossible to achieve.  And also
> > our original take had overlooked to allow the definition of
> > an APS around an interior sub-string (doh!).
> >
> > This replaces the recursion with an equivalent non-recursion one, and
> > (nicely) the flattened EBNF is identical to the flattened
> > EBNF of the original CGM:1999 in the case of no sub-string APS.
> >
> > I will send this to Dick Puk in the morning, if no one sees
> > any errors.
> >
> > -Lofton.
> >