[tei-council] Fwd: bug report for Council, if you like
Martin Holmes
mholmes at uvic.ca
Mon Oct 4 13:11:04 EDT 2010
I believe I've dredged up the history of this. On the TEI Graphics SIG,
in April, I posted this:
[quote]
HI all,
Yesterday I worked out a simple regular expression to validate the
content of the proposed @points:
[\d]+,[\d]+([\s]+[\d]+,[\d]+){2,}
meaning:
each point consists of two integers separated by a comma; a points value
consists of three or more of these points, separated by a whitespace.
However, going back to look at the specification for @svg:points, which
was our original model, I realize that it allows negative values as well
as positive, and floating-point values as well as integers.
Since @ulx and friends are defined as data.numeric, which also allows
negatives and floating-point numbers, it would make sense to me that
@points allows this too. This is the definition of data.numeric:
data.numeric =
xsd:double | token { pattern = "(\-?[\d]+/\-?[\d]+)" } | xsd:decimal
<http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-data.numeric.html>
In view of this, I think @points should be defined as three or more
instances of data.numeric, separated by whitespace. What do you think?
[/quote]
So it seems that I'm the source of the erroneous regexp, but in fact I
wasn't proposing that it be adopted; I favoured using three+ instances
of data.numeric instead. Both Sebastian and Conal agreed with this.
However, on the SF feature request discussion, this doesn't seem to have
been considered (presumably my fault -- I did include my faulty regexp
in the discussion, but neglected to bring over the resulting discussion
from the GRAPHICS SIG.
Cheers,
Martin
Cheers,
Martin
On 10-10-03 10:46 PM, Laurent Romary wrote:
> Just pointing to it to confirm this would be the most sensible way to
> rpoceed.
> Laurent
>
> Le 3 oct. 10 à 20:14, Martin Holmes a écrit :
>
>>> what do you think about closing the path?
>>
>> I seem to recall a discussion about this before. Did we not decide
>> that
>> if a path is not closed, it would be deemed closed as if the first
>> point
>> were re-iterated as the last?
>
> Laurent Romary
> INRIA& HUB-IDSL
> laurent.romary at inria.fr
>
>
>
>
--
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)
More information about the tei-council
mailing list