OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cgmo-webcgm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: ACI DTD and conformance


Thanks, Rob, for the response and analysis.

I don't see any need or use for public identifier.  Does anyone else?

Accordingly, we would add to Ch.9, similar to 4.2.3, a "System Identifier 
for the WebCGM 2.1 ACI" and "DOCTYPE Example":
<!DOCTYPE webcgmConfig SYSTEM
"http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.1/webcgmConfig21.dtd";>

And make it part of a validity requirement in 9.2.2.  (That DTD location 
has precedent in WebCGM 2.0 for the XCF DTD.)

One question about #4 (below):  why does 4.2.4 say "...if an appropriate 
document type declaration ... which points to the WebCGM DTD is included 
immediately after the XML declaration ... the result is a valid XML document."

I know this language was pinched from similar language in SVG, but can't 
recall the rationale behind the "if".  For ACI at least, do we want 
conforming ACI instances to contain a DOCTYPE or not?

-Lofton.

At 11:15 AM 4/22/2009 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
>Lofton,
>
>I agree with your observation that [1] below is under-specified.  We specify
>a DTD in section 9.4, but nowhere do we state that an ACI file must be valid
>(conforms to the DTD).  Here are my answers to your questions in order.
>
>1) Yes.
>2) This depends on whether we want to specify a public ID for ACI files.  In
>my opinion, a public ID is not really necessary, but we might want to
>specify one anyway since we did so for XCF.  If we had a public ID for ACI,
>the DOCTYPE would be similar to the XCF DOCTYPE.  If not, it would look
>something like this.
>
><!DOCTYPE webcgmConfig SYSTEM
>"http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.1/webcgmConfig21.dtd";>
>
>3) Yes.  As I recall, OASIS has established rules for where DTDs are placed
>in their public web space.  We dealt with this during 2.0 spec development
>when XCF was introduced.
>4) I think it is sufficient to say that the ACI document must be valid.
>This is a well defined term in the XML specification.
>
>BTW, the first bullet in [3] below mentions XML 1.0 3rd Edition.  XML 1.0 is
>now at 5th Edition.
>
>Rob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:36 AM
>To: CGM Open WebCGM TC
>Cc: David Cruikshank
>Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: ACI DTD and conformance
>
>
>All (esp. our markup experts Stuart, Rob, Dave) --
>
>While looking at Don's ACI files, I noticed this:
><!DOCTYPE webcgmConfig SYSTEM "webConfig.dtd">
>
>Small problem: there seems to be a naming error.  In the current-editor
>directory, the file name is "webcgmConfig21.dtd".  (Don, please don't
>update this on the FTP site yet, until we sort through the rest of the
>issue.)
>
>Bigger QUESTION:  what should such a DOCTYPE look like and what about the
>conformance statements in Ch.9?
>
>References:
>
>ACI DOCTYPE and conformance:
>[1]
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Config.h
>tml#ACI-conform
>XCF DOCTYPE:
>[2]
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-XCF.html
>#namespace
>XCF Conformance:
>[3]
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-XCF.html
>#conforming
>
>Discussion:
>
>First, compare [2] & [3] with [1].  It seems to me that [1] is a bit
>under-specified.
>
>1.) Should [1] show what a proper ACI DOCTYPE looks like, similar to [2]?
>2.) If "yes", then ... what does it look like?
>3.) Further to #2, shouldn't ACI DTD references be able to point to a
>*permanent* central location similar to [2] for XCF, i.e., something like:
>http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.1/webcgmConfig21.dtd
>4.) Should 9.2.2 [1] have a conformance bullet similar to the 3rd bullet of
>[3], i.e., something like:
>"if an appropriate document type declaration (i.e., <!DOCTYPE webcgmConfig
>... >) which points to the webcgmConfig21 DTD is included immediately after
>the XML declaration (i.e., <?xml...?>), the result is a valid XML document."
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Opinion:  I don't see any big issue here, but it appears that these bits of
>Ch.9 are somewhat "rough draft" form, and can be tightened up now in
>anticipation of this eventually becoming a public standard.
>
>-Lofton.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]