[x3d-public] ProtoInstance USE without name

[John Carlson]

$ node x3dvalidate.js LOA*json
Loading schema
Parsing schema
Adding schema
Schema 4.0 added
Schema 4.0 compiled
Success reading LOA0ExampleSourceInVRML.json
Success reading LOA0ExampleSourceWithDiamonds.json
Success reading LOA1ExampleSourceInVRML.json
Success reading LOA1ExampleSourceWithDiamonds.json
Success reading LOA2ExampleSourceInVRML.json
Success reading LOA2ExampleSourceWithDiamonds.json
Success reading LOA3ExampleSourceInVRML.json
Success reading LOA3ExampleSourceWithDiamonds.json
Success reading LOA4ExampleSourceInVRML.json
Success reading LOA4ExampleSourceWithDiamonds.json

On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 5:15 PM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:

> Interesting.  I will now check the LOA4*.json examples against schema and
> see what happens.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 5:02 PM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Looking at why the old Prototypes for HAnim did not work properly for
>> x3dom, I found that the xml examples typically have a ProtoInstance
>> statement with a USE attribute but without the corresponding name attribute
>> defining the actual node type. However, x3dom expects a name attribute with
>> every ProtoInstance statement, even USE ones, to be able to insert the
>> appropriate node.
>>
>> The xml spec  at
>>
>>
>> https://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19776-1/V3.3/Part01/concepts.html#ProtoInstanceAndFieldValueStatement
>>
>> does not address USE of ProtoInstances but all examples always have a
>> name attribute.
>>
>> Also, in my quite extensive testing of Protos, I did not come across
>> other examples of ProtoInstance elements without a name attribute.
>>
>> To be fair, the name attribute is not strictly necessary for USE
>> ProtoInstances since the type of the inserted node can be determined from
>> the referenced DEF node. But having the name attribute makes ProtoInstance
>> elements more similar to regular nodes. So I think not requiring the name
>> attribute for USE ProtoInstances should be explicitly allowed in the xml
>> spec., but still be encouraged.
>>
>> I do not think the xml spec. would be otherwise affected by V.4 ?
>>
>> Best, Andreas
>>
>> --
>> Andreas Plesch
>> Waltham, MA 02453
>> _______________________________________________
>> x3d-public mailing list
>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20201122/e76a1a38/attachment.html>