Fwd: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: ACI DTD and conformance

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

All --

Here are Dave's thoughts.  Dave drafted the sections of Ch.9, and
(IIRC) was the drafter/author of the similar conformance/DOCTYPE stuff in
Ch.4.

(Note.  I'm going to transfer this item over to the WG shortly, and
over there I'll ask Dave to draft the fix-it text for Ch.9, incl. his
recommended public ID bit).

> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:25:03
> -0700
> Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: ACI DTD and conformance
> From: David Cruikshank <dvdcruikshank@gmail.com>
> To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
>
> Lofton,
>
> I can't cc the TC, but here are my thoughts.
>
> concerning the question related to #4...I think in 9.2.2 when we
> say:
>
> "A file is a conforming WebCGM 2.1 ACI document if it adheres to the
> specifications described in this (WebCGM 2.1) document, including those
> in the WebCGM 2.1 ACI DTD"
>
> We are sort of implying that the document is a valid document. i.e.-the
> difference between a well-formed document and valid document. 
> putting the DOCTYPE in the instance really insures that it can be parsed
> as valid, as opposed to well-formed.
>
> 9.2.2 doesn't require the existence of the DOCTYPE, but it does require
> that a conforming document parse correctly against the Webcgm config
> DTD.  Well-formed alone doesn't insure that.
>
> I think we probably should have a public identifier like we do for the
> XCF DTD.  Otherwise you probably should deliver a config dtd with
> every set of data.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> Dave
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Lofton Henderson
> <lofton@rockynet.com>
> wrote:
> > 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