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

[Robert Orosz <roboro@auto-trol.com>]

Lofton,

XCF has the wrinkle (not present in ACI) that it is extensible by the user.
Stub parameter entity references are declared in the XCF DTD which users
could define in their own DTDs.  I believe that in order to get this to work
properly, you would need a document type declaration that referenced your
own DTD first so that the appropriate parameter entities are defined, and
then you reference the WebCGM DTD in order to complete the document type
declaration.  Hence you have the more complicated conformance statement in
4.2.4, but it would not be needed in the ACI case.

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:10 PM
To: CGM Open WebCGM TC
Cc: David Cruikshank
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.htm
l
>#namespace
>XCF Conformance:
>[3]
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-XCF.htm
l
>#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


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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