<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I am sorry I do not have a 4.0 JSON schema yet based on the Object Model. My worker has fallen ill, and I have been kinda low, so have not pursued generating the schema. If that is a priority over glTF to X3D JSON, I will pursue it.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I do not patch the 3.3 schema, I patch the 3.0 schema. That way, it’s easy to maintain the current 3.3 version. Your validator should work with different schema versions.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>John</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sent from <a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986">Mail</a> for Windows 10</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:yottzumm@gmail.com">John Carlson</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Monday, July 10, 2017 12:11 PM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:brutzman@nps.edu">Don Brutzman</a><br><b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:x3d-public@web3d.org">X3D Graphics public mailing list</a>; <a href="mailto:roy.walmsley@ntlworld.com">Roy Walmsley</a><br><b>Subject: </b>RE: X3D JSON schema validation problems: geoSystem "UTM"</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>May I suggest you search Mantis before bringing the subject up again, then bring up the Mantis issue for resolution? Email is fine, we just don’t need to repeat ourselves. I agree, Roy does a really good job of finding Mantis issues. We all need to use the tools available to reduce chatter. Sometimes, a quick skype message helps a good deal, and then you can bring up the Mantis issue to the mailing list for discussion, instead of misdirecting to Schema issues.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I agree, “N” should be acceptable, but do not know the rest of the process. Should this be discussed in the Mantis group?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>John<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sent from <a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986">Mail</a> for Windows 10<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:brutzman@nps.edu">Don Brutzman</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Monday, July 10, 2017 12:02 PM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:yottzumm@gmail.com">John Carlson</a><br><b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:x3d-public@web3d.org">X3D Graphics public mailing list</a>; <a href="mailto:roy.walmsley@ntlworld.com">Roy Walmsley</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: X3D JSON schema validation problems: geoSystem "UTM"<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Well, uh, schema patching may be good for test suites, but am trying to work holistically... would rather have a scene bug that illustrates a mantis issue, and document it as such, so that issue resolution is eventually confirmed satisfactorily.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Removing the experimental XvlShell nodes makes sense - for later-version validators. Those XvlShell examples might be kept at version 3.0 or 3.1 as apppropriate to maintain historic validity. Good point, will look at it in next schema/DTD revision update.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On 7/10/2017 8:56 AM, John Carlson wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> Suggest fixing scene content or using a patched schema to avoid errors. I use a patched schema because I can’t change the scene content. Patched schema was previously provided, but includes XvlShell, which can be removed, if desired. Patched schema is not up-to-date with Roy’s geoSystem changes, so I suggest basing your patch off his version.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>all the best, Don<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Don Brutzman Naval Postgraduate School, Code USW/Br brutzman@nps.edu<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Watkins 270, MOVES Institute, Monterey CA 93943-5000 USA +1.831.656.2149<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>X3D graphics, virtual worlds, navy robotics http://faculty.nps.edu/brutzman<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>