[X3D-Public] containerField is should or must ?

[Joe D Williams]

"Ordinarily the containerField value can be omitted. The default 
containerField value for a given node may be overridden when necessary 
to indicate a different relationship with a given node's parent."

HI Johannes, look at allowed values for containerField.
ContainerField information is explicit in the hierarchy of nodes as 
defined in the xml schema and so this field is only required to be 
included as a possible crutch for prototype first node. So, no protos? 
Then no extraordinary circumstances and you should just ignore.
Good Luck,
Joe




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Johannes Behr" <johannes.behr at igd.fraunhofer.de>
To: "x3d mlist" <x3d at web3d.org>; "x3d-pulbic mlist" 
<x3d-public at web3d.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 6:52 AM
Subject: [X3D-Public] containerField is should or must ?


> Hi,
>
> we have some issues with xml/x3d-content and got it down to a basic 
> spec-question:
>
> If we have content like this:
>
> <Shape  >
> <Box containerField='foo' >
> ...
> </Box>
> </Shape>
>
> There is no 'foo'-field in Shape and therefore the 
> containerField='foo' assignment fails.
>
> What should happen in this case? Should the Shape fall-back to the 
> normal behavior and
> put the Box in geometry or should the parser stop with an error?
>
> Is the containerField an should-go-there or must-go-there ?
>
> the related spec link I have found:
>
> http://www.web3d.org/x3d/specifications/ISO-IEC-19776-1.2-X3DEncodings-XML/Part01/concepts.html#ContainerFieldAttributeSyntax
>
> best regards,
> johannes
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> X3D-Public mailing list
> X3D-Public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org