All (esp. our markup experts Stuart, Rob, Dave) --

While looking at Don's ACI files, I noticed this: <!DOCTYPE webcgmConfig SYSTEM "webConfig.dtd">

Small problem: there seems to be a naming error. In the current-editor directory, the file name is "webcgmConfig21.dtd". (Don, please don't update this on the FTP site yet, until we sort through the rest of the issue.)

Bigger QUESTION: what should such a DOCTYPE look like and what about the conformance statements in Ch.9?

References:

ACI DOCTYPE and conformance: [1] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Config.html#ACI-conform XCF DOCTYPE: [2] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-XCF.html#namespace XCF Conformance: [3] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-XCF.html#conforming

Discussion:

First, compare [2] & [3] with [1]. It seems to me that [1] is a bit under-specified.

1.) Should [1] show what a proper ACI DOCTYPE looks like, similar to [2]? 2.) If "yes", then ... what does it look like? 3.) Further to #2, shouldn't ACI DTD references be able to point to a *permanent* central location similar to [2] for XCF, i.e., something like: http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.1/webcgmConfig21.dtd 4.) Should 9.2.2 [1] have a conformance bullet similar to the 3rd bullet of [3], i.e., something like: "if an appropriate document type declaration (i.e., <!DOCTYPE webcgmConfig ... >) which points to the webcgmConfig21 DTD is included immediately after the XML declaration (i.e., <?xml...?>), the result is a valid XML document."

Thoughts?

Opinion: I don't see any big issue here, but it appears that these bits of Ch.9 are somewhat "rough draft" form, and can be tightened up now in anticipation of this eventually becoming a public standard.

-Lofton.