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
>
