[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Color/Intensity issue
Greetings! I would really like to have all the editorial notes resolved by the next committee draft for part 1. I have noted a number of pending issues but I am going to need help on resolving them. What follows is an example of a class of comments that covers several entries in the current text. I have several notes that question what it would mean to have a -50% value for a color? I looked at the schema and the problem appears to be more widespread than my notes would indicate. In the schema we define "percent" as follows: In the schema: <define name="percent"> <data type="string"> <param name="pattern">-?([0-9]+(\.[0-9]*)?|\.[0-9]+)%</param> </data> </define> In the text, when we treat colors and other values, we don't say that allowed values are limited to the range 0 to 100%. I am reasoning that either negative percentage values or greater than 100% for colors, transparency, etc. are not meaningful. There is a legitimate use of signed percentage for lengths (another place where we use this definition) because I can easily see the case where I want a length to be 200% of some other length or -50% of some length. However, here is a listing of the attributes where it isn't clear (to me anyway) that allowing negative percentage values or values in excess of 100% is meaningful: draw:extrusion-brightness draw:extrusion-diffusion draw:extrusion-first-light-level draw:extrusion-second-light-level draw:extrusion-shininess draw:extrusion-specularity draw:start-intensity draw:end-intensity draw:border draw:opacity style:background-transparency svg:stroke-opacity (see comment below on this one) draw:luminance draw:contrast draw:gamma draw:red draw:green draw:blue draw:image-opacity draw:shadow-opacity dr3d:shininess chart:hole-size [Comment: on svg:stroke-opacity, the schema says: <optional> <attribute name="svg:stroke-opacity"> <choice> <data type="double"> <param name="minInclusive">0</param> <param name="maxInclusive">1</param> </data> <ref name="percent"/> </choice> </attribute> </optional> So we actually have a conflict between the value spaces that are defined in the alternative. That is the first option is: 0 to 1, the second option is: negative or positive percentage with no limit to 100%. - end comment] To fix this general issue: We can simply insert language for each attribute saying: The space for this attribute is 0 to 100%, inclusive. (Simply ignoring what the schema says and making this a prose restriction.) OR, We can insert the language I suggest and change the "ref" on these attributes to a *new* value space of 0 to 100, inclusive, expressed as a percentage. (I don't know how that would affect backwards compatibility.) Which would give us schema validation of the values in these attributes. My personal preference would be for the second option but I mention the first just in case we can't change that aspect of the schema. Hope everyone is having a great day! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]