Talk:DOM future work: Difference between revisions
have suggested SID schema changes beeen bugzillaed? |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==SID schema enhancement request== | ==SID schema enhancement request== | ||
In the [DOM_future_work#SID_resolvers|SID resolvers]] section of this page, you suggest changes to teh COLLADA schema. Has this been submitted to COLLADA's bugzilla? [[User:Elf|Elf]] 14:03, 21 March 2007 (PDT) | In the [[DOM_future_work#SID_resolvers|SID resolvers]] section of this page, you suggest changes to teh COLLADA schema. Has this been submitted to COLLADA's bugzilla? [[User:Elf|Elf]] 14:03, 21 March 2007 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 21:03, 21 March 2007
Hexbinary clarification
Re this paragraph:
- Currently HexBinary is defined as a daeCharArray. But it needs to be a two-dimensional array daeTArray< daeTArray< daeUChar > * >. This is because hexbinary is a string of characters encoded in hex. 1A2B3C is 3 bytes (characters). The COLLADA Schema uses a list of HexBinary. So “1A2B3C 4D5E6F” requires two three-character arrays.
I'm not following this. Is "...because hexbinary is a string of chars..." a statement of the way it currently is, or of how it should be, and are we referring to the DOM or to COLLADA schema here? And is "1A2B3C is 3 bytes (characters)" simply an example to go along with the previous statement? Also I don't follow how the last sentence follows from the previous sentence--if collada schema uses a list of hexbinary, then isn't 1A2B etc. a list of 5 hexbinary items? Maybe the distinction between DOM hexbinary and collada schema hexbinary just isn't clear? Elf 13:59, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
SID schema enhancement request
In the SID resolvers section of this page, you suggest changes to teh COLLADA schema. Has this been submitted to COLLADA's bugzilla? Elf 14:03, 21 March 2007 (PDT)