DR 09-0063: Help with buffer "lengths"

[Shawn Villaron]

Interesting; that makes me wonder if our resolution to DR-09-0070 is incorrect …

But, this does seem to make more sense from an XML perspective, so unless someone disagrees, I think we should go with using “unicode characters” as the metric.

I’d prefer to take the DRs listed below, add DR-09-0070 to the list, and update their prose so that it clearly states Unicode characters.  I looked at changing the Terms and Definitions ( adding a definition for character, but with 2600+ instances of character, we could introduce more problems ).

I’ll get these proposals out based on the above information shortly ( next couple of hours ).

From: Innovimax SARL [mailto:innovimax at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 12:12 AM
To: Shawn Villaron
Cc: SC 34 WG4
Subject: Re: DR 09-0063: Help with buffer "lengths"

Shawn,

My understanding is the opposite. It looks like JISC was afraid that the length were in octet

So the way to solve this is to make the word "character" points to a definition of "unicode character" in Terms and Definitions

Regards,

Mohamed
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Shawn Villaron <shawnv at microsoft.com<mailto:shawnv at microsoft.com>> wrote:

Greetings,



I’m hoping that one of the XML experts on WG4 can help me determine the right approach for handling a set of open defect reports.



The following defect reports relate to the lengths of buffers for some of our entities:



DR 09-0063 — WML, Fields: Form Field Properties length

                Part 1, §17.16.17, “ffData (Form Field Properties)”, p. 1412

DR 09-0064 — WML, Simple Types: ST_FFHelpTextVal length

                Part 1, §17.18.25, “ST_FFHelpTextVal”, p. 1534

DR 09-0065 — WML, Simple Types: ST_FFName length

                Part 1, §17.18.26, ST_FFName, p. 1535

DR 09-0066 — WML, Simple Types: ST_MacroName length

                Part 1, §17.18.51, “ST_MacroName”, p. 1563

DR 09-0068 — SML, Styles: name attribute length

                Part 1, §18.8.29, “name (Font Name)”, p. 1965

DR 09-0069 — SML, Pivot Tables: longText attribute length

                Part 1, §18.10.1.90, “sharedItems (Shared Items)”, p. 2164



We’ve currently defined each of these buffers in terms of number of characters.  My notes say that there is WG4 interest in understanding the lengths of these in octets.  But that’s where I’m getting confused.



Since XML specifies a character encoding, shouldn’t characters be the right unit of measurement here?  I’ve verified that the buffers defined are correct, so if we’re just waiting for verification, we can write this up and close them out; if we need to use a different unit of measurement, if you can help me figure out what the right unit of measurement is, I can get them written up tomorrow.



To be clear, I don’t have a strong opinion here; rather, I’d prefer to tap into the XML expertise on WG4 to inform me on the best approach.



As you can imagine, I’m super interested in getting proposals to all of these out ASAP.  Any help here would be greatly appreciated.



Thanks!



shawn





--
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20090610/01374487/attachment.htm>