[x3d-public] Fwd: ProtoInstance USE without name

[John Carlson]

I don’t see JSON schema moving through IETF quickly, and last I heard, they
were going to standardize 4 different drafts of JSON schema.   They are
even seeking assistance when taking the draft to IETF.  Volunteers?

X3D does not have a standardized JSON schema.   The best we have for USE
might work across all versions of X3D.   I do not know the history of USE.

It is my intention to maintain a JSON schema for each X3DUOM versions.

I don’t think we’re putting validation in the standard, that’s up to the
vendors.

I don’t ever recall seeing X3D XML schema in a standard?

John

On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:52 AM Christoph Valentin <
christoph.valentin at gmx.at> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> as far as I think to understand the IETF community, the robustness
> principle is meant to be applied for cases, when the standard is fuzzy.
>
> So it applies to our case here.
>
> You can do a very strict validation, if a standard
>
>    - is well-defined, well-accepted, well-deployed and precise
>    - is not subject to future changes nor has got a past
>
> Otherwise every validation must accept compromises
>
> Agree?
>
> KR
> Christoph
>
>
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 28. November 2020 um 18:36 Uhr
> *Von:* "John Carlson" <yottzumm at gmail.com>
> *An:* "Christoph Valentin" <christoph.valentin at gmx.at>
> *Cc:* "X3D Graphics public mailing list" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [x3d-public] Fwd: ProtoInstance USE without name
> Should one accept SQL injection?   No!
>
> Note:  I have not added any validation to X3DOM or X_ITE, and do not
> expect to.
>
> I do not expect to strip out validation from X3DJSONLD anytime soon.
>
> John
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:26 AM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If I accept everything, validation is useless.   That’s why I provide a
>> way for the user to override :).
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:22 AM Christoph Valentin <
>> christoph.valentin at gmx.at> wrote:
>>
>>> hi all
>>>
>>> Do you know Jon Postel's robustness principle?
>>>
>>> Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send out.
>>>
>>> means: add the name attribute when sending
>>> keep the name attribute when forwarding/proxying
>>> ignore the name attribute when receiving.
>>> kr
>>>
>>> --
>>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit GMX Mail
>>> gesendet.
>>> Am 28.11.20, 17:58 schrieb John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Again, if USE is specified in a proto instance in X3D JSON, then
>>>> X3DJSONLD and related tools will not validate a name property in the node.
>>>>   I suggest X3dToJson.xslt reject the spurious name when generating JSON.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>> From: Christoph Valentin <christoph.valentin at gmx.at>
>>>> Date: Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 8:18 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] ProtoInstance USE without name
>>>> To: Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com>
>>>> CC: X3D Graphics public mailing list <x3d-public at web3d.org>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andreas,
>>>>
>>>> I felt free to provide an example scene in three flavors.
>>>>
>>>> The prototype renders a little pig that says "Eatme!", when you touch
>>>> it (in remembrance of Douglas Adams)
>>>>
>>>> Version A: <ProtoInstance USE="xxx" name="yyy"/>    WITH name attribute
>>>> - standards compliant
>>>> Version B: <ProtoInstance USE="xxx"/>  WITHOUT name attribute
>>>> Version C: <Script USE="xxx"/>  WORKAROUND - works for all browsers
>>>>
>>>> I tested with BS Contact --- he can cope with all three versions.
>>>>
>>>> Download the .zip file at
>>>> https://lc-soc-lc.at/experimental/ProtoInstanceWithUSE/     I provide
>>>> it by a GPLv3.
>>>>
>>>> Feed Back welcome. You may take it and give it to your benchmark tests,
>>>> if you like.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Christoph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 24. November 2020 um 00:30 Uhr
>>>> *Von:* "Andreas Plesch" <andreasplesch at gmail.com>
>>>> *An:* "Christoph Valentin" <christoph.valentin at gmx.at>
>>>> *Cc:* "X3D Graphics public mailing list" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [x3d-public] ProtoInstance USE without name
>>>> Hi Christoph,
>>>>
>>>> thanks, interesting. Perhaps it will be useful to try a USE
>>>> ProtoInstance in a very simple scene, in multiple browsers.
>>>>
>>>> -Andreas
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 1:01 PM Christoph Valentin <
>>>> christoph.valentin at gmx.at> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> This bug is common to many X3D players (even classical non-WebGL X3D
>>>>> players).
>>>>>
>>>>> I was used to use following workaround, which worked for all relevant
>>>>> players:
>>>>>
>>>>> If I want to USE a DEFd ProtoInstance, I will actually instantiate a
>>>>> <Script> node with USE.
>>>>>
>>>>> KR,
>>>>> Christoph
>>>>>
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Montag, 23. November 2020 um 00:00 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Andreas Plesch" <andreasplesch at gmail.com>
>>>>> *An:* "X3D Graphics public mailing list" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
>>>>> *Betreff:* [x3d-public] ProtoInstance USE without name
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Andreas Plesch
>>>> Waltham, MA 02453
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> x3d-public mailing list
>>>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>>> _______________________________________________ x3d-public mailing list
>>>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20201128/f71496f1/attachment-0001.html>