[tei-council] Fwd: bug report for Council, if you like

[Martin Holmes]

I think we need to decide whether the idea to use data.numeric is a good 
one or not. Does anyone see any objections?

Cheers,
Martin

On 10-10-04 10:34 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> thanks for clarifying the history martin... do you think you could update the ticket syd has just submitted with a proposed fix?
>
> from the pad
>
>
> On 4 Oct 2010, at 18:11, "Martin Holmes"<mholmes at uvic.ca>  wrote:
>
>> 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)
>> _______________________________________________
>> tei-council mailing list
>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)