Re: editing -- oops, correction

[Dieter@isodraw.de (Dieter Weidenbrueck)]

Lofton,

see my comments below:

> I think the change is correct, but the wording of the sections is poor
(who
> wrote this stuff?!):
John.

> ### begin ###
> pictid - The pictid [Ed: use same font as 1st word] keyword indicates that
> selection of the picture to be viewed is by the id of the picture, which
is
> the id parameter in the BEGIN PICTURE element. The picture id value is the
> first, required parameter associated with the keyword (see EBNF), and
there
> may be a second associated parameter, which is an optional picture
behavior
> specification.  If the metafile does not contain a picture with the
> specified picture id value, the first picture in the metafile is chosen.
Agreed.

> pictseqno - The pictseqno [Ed: use same font as 1st word] keyword
indicates
> that selection of the picture to be viewed is by the sequence number of
the
> picture in the metafile. "1" is the first picture, "2" is the second
> picture, etc. The picture sequence number value is the first, required
> parameter associated with the keyword (see EBNF), and there may be a
second
> associated parameter, whose value is an optional picture behavior
> specification.  If the specified picture sequence number value exceeds the
> number of pictures in the metafile, the last picture is displayed.
Agreed.

> ### end ###
>
> Now, the use of "1" (instead of 1) made me look back to the EBNF.  We
> already have a bug fix to the [0-9]+, to prevent the value 0 (ZERO).  So
> how about this:
>
> picseqno ::= (non-zero-digit)(digit)*
> [...]
> non-zero-digit ::= "1" | ... | "9"
> digit ::= "0" | digit
>
> Of course, this prevents you from writing picture sequence numbers with
> leading zeros, "001".  Does anyone care?  If someone objects to this
> change, then we can leave it as (digit)+ (which is better, I think, than
> [0-9]+), and add to the 3.1.2.1, before the "exceeds number of pictures"
> sentence, "The specified picture sequence number value shall be positive."
>
> Please comment:  option 1 (enforce positive via EBNF change, which has the
> "no leading" ); or, option 2 (enforce positive via words in 3.1.2.1).
This is my preference, but any of the three sounds good to me.

>
> Or option 3:  (digit)*(non-zero-digit)(digit)*   (BNF expression for
> positive, leading zeros allowed!).
>

Dieter