RE: editing -- oops, correction

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 03:13 PM 4/10/01 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote:
>However picseqno was already changed in the current errata from "[0-9]+" 
>to "[1-9][0-9]*".  Do we need to go back and undo this??
>[...]
> > I too am leaning toward option 2 also...any others?

Dave,

The problem I have now with the [1-9][0-9]* is this:  it isn't obvious to 
me that that expression, if placed in the EBNF, designates the digit 
characters -- a string is required at that place in the fragment -- as 
opposed to a binary numeric value (for example).  It is probably okay, but 
I'm too tired of this to think it through.  On the other hand, I know that 
(digit)* represents a string.

So I think this will all comments -- you, Dieter, Harry, me:

1. use my earlier proposed revised wording for pictid,
2. use (digit)+ instead of [1-9]+ or [1-9][0-9]*.
3. for pictseqno paragraph, use this slight modification of my earlier 
proposal (handles positive, allows leading zeros):

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. An all-digit string representing 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.  The picture sequence number value 
shall be positive. If the specified picture sequence value exceeds the 
number of pictures in the metafile, the last picture is displayed.

I don't expect any objections -- this accommodates everyone's first choice.

-Lofton.

> > thx...Dave
> >
> >       ----------
> >       From:   Dieter@isodraw.de[SMTP:Dieter@isodraw.de]
> >       Reply To:       Dieter
> >       Sent:   Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:26 PM
> >       To:     Dieter; Cruikshank, David W; Lofton Henderson
> >       Cc:     cgmopen-members@lists.oasis-open.org
> >       Subject:        Re: editing -- oops, correction
> >
> >       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
> >
> >
> >
> >       ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >       To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> >       "unsubscribe" in the body to: 
> cgmopen-members-request@lists.oasis-open.org
> >
> >
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
>"unsubscribe" in the body to: cgmopen-members-request@lists.oasis-open.org