[X3D-Public] containerField is should or must ?

[Tony Parisi]

IMO containerField is a "don't go there," aagh I always hated that feature.

But you have to do it.

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Johannes Behr <
johannes.behr at igd.fraunhofer.de> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
Tony Parisi                             tparisi at gmail.com
CTO at Large                         415.902.8002
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20100804/fcf8edd7/attachment.html>