Lofton,
you understood it correctly. Even if default picture or object behavior is
intended it needs to be spelled out.
Dieter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lofton Henderson" <>
To: "Dieter" <>; <>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: WebCGM preview
> Dieter,
>
> If I correctly understand your proposed change, "with all optional parts
> spelled out", then I don't have a problem. What I think you mean is
> this: you can't eliminate the optional behavior parts of the two terms,
> the picterm and objterm. Is that correct? If so, then what you said is
> what was intended. If not, then please clarify it for me.
>
> -Lofton.
>
> At 09:14 PM 5/30/01 +0200, Dieter Weidenbrueck wrote:
> >Lofton,
> >
> >there is one more change that I want to suggest:
> >
> >3.1.1.3. Fragment Character Repertoire
> >
> >Note that these character repertoires allow one or more of the characters
> >".", ",", "(", and ")". These are significant characters in the syntax of
> >the WebCGM fragment specification. If any of these four significant
> >characters is to appear in a valid id/name string within a fragment
> >instance, then the fragment shall use the unabbreviated long form, which
> >is the first of the five optional forms in the 'webcgmfragment'
production
> >of 3.1.1.2.
> >
> >Change to:
> >
> >Note that these character repertoires allow one or more of the characters
> >".", ",", "(", and ")". These are significant characters in the syntax of
> >the WebCGM fragment specification. If any of these four significant
> >characters is to appear in a valid id/name string within a fragment
> >instance, then the fragment shall use the unabbreviated long form with
all
> >optional parts spelled out, which is the first of the five optional forms
> >in the 'webcgmfragment' production of 3.1.1.2.
> >
> >
> >I think it is necessary to add this because otherwise it is not always
> >possible to parse the fragment correctly.
> >
> >Dieter
> >
>
