From: P A Hill & E V Goodall (goodhill_at_xmission.com)
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:35:23 CET
Return-Path: <owner-cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch> Delivered-To: cavexml-archive_at_cartography.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 60B579F1D for <cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:53:03 +0100 (CET) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 28) id 7160F9F0D; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:53:00 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 7A4209F1D for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:52:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from mgr2.xmission.com (mgr2.xmission.com [126.96.36.199]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 5F25C9EC4 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:52:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from [188.8.131.52] (helo=mail.xmission.com) by mgr2.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 16YvCs-0004mO-00 for cavexml_at_cartography.ch; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 13:31:46 -0700 Received: from goodhill.dsl.xmission.com ([184.108.40.206] helo=xmission.com) by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 16YvCr-0003Q4-00 for cavexml_at_cartography.ch; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 13:31:46 -0700 Message-ID: <3C62E50B.8B98A41F@xmission.com> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 13:35:23 -0700 From: P A Hill & E V Goodall <goodhill_at_xmission.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch Subject: Re: Canonicalized values was: ...BlueBook/ (fwd) References: <20020207123853.D050D9ED1_at_karmail.ethz.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karmail.ethz.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11
R Knapp wrote:
> <CaveXML version="0.02" value_angles="degrees" value_distances="meters"
> Nothing fancy.
Sounds sensible to me.
> > But what happens if the original was in the same units as the standard units?
> An excellent argument!
and John said:
>Now that you mention it, that does seem the cleaner approach.
I guess I have a good idea now and then; I guess that was mine for this month :-)
> I like both:
> <Distance reading="10" value="3.05"/>
> <Distance original="10" value="3.05"/>
Of course, you only get one or the other, it is simply a matter of picking a
word. Where you thinking that "reading" was different than "original"? That
was not my intent.
> <Distance value="3.05"/>
> when canonical units match survey units. It makes it much clearer ...
It also occurs to me that those who will treat CaveXML as an interchange format and
not a storage format might just not bother sending some odd original measurement
and just send out the standard value, so might find it odd to have an attribute
keyword "canonical_value". I never want to loose anything so wouldn't
leaving out anything myself, but we all know that is one way to use such a format.
It is even how John suggested it could be used. Plus there is all the survey
already in meters. All in all, sounds like sufficient justification for the value
to be in a canonical form and 'original' if available and needed,
be the optional one.
You guys have got me off my (figurative) butt. I was actually writing code
that was reading XML with a SAX parser last night. I'm
pursuing the original goal of XSLT pilot project in order
to really get a handle on various XML issues. Stay tuned.
If there are any cavers out there familiar with XSLT, it would be great to
hear from you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Feb 28 2002 - 23:00:00 CET