[X3D-Public] Contour2D containerField analysis

Michalis Kamburelis michalis.kambi at gmail.com
Mon Sep 2 08:32:17 PDT 2013

Joe D Williams wrote:
>> Don't' get me started /don't get me started on that! No further
>> discussion needed there.
> Right, all you gotta do to fully step up to XML Schema and get rid of
> containerField :) or else to make sure that if the containerField is not
> there we give a suitable default, and that if it is there then is it a
> correct choice. That way we don't need masses of wrappers in our user
> code, like if we actually transcoded literally and did not rely on a
> schema to advise the processor about structures and content models.

Completely getting rid of containerField will require changes, at least 
around Collision.proxy and MetadataSet.value definitions. Right now, 
using these fields requires you to use containerField, as you put there 
nodes that in other circumstances are attached to different fields. 
Getting rid of containerField will probably require inventing some new 
nodes to make things unambiguous even without containerField.

BTW, I completely agree, I'm all after getting rid of containerField. 
But I guess this was already discussed, that's why Don didn't want us to 
get him started on that :)


More information about the X3D-Public mailing list