[WF-Protocols] first attempt with xml schema

[Anders Stenberg]

Matze Braun wrote:

>On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Anders Stenberg wrote:
>
>  
>
>>res wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On 06.07.2003 21:09, Matze Braun wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>-How should we reference to the textureunits? currently you can give 
>>>>a integer
>>>>  number like this:
>>>>  <texturecoords textureunit="1"/>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>IMHO "texture units" sound too hardware-centric. Maybe "texture 
>>>coordinate set" is a better name. Also, identifiers for set should be 
>>>arbitrary names:
>>>    <texturecoords set="diffuse_map" />
>>>    <texturecoords set="fancy_effect" />
>>>etc.
>>>
>>>- f.r.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I guess I agree here. I'd like to see some kind of general entry too. 
>>    
>>
>Ok, I changed this to a "set" attribute with string identifier.
>
>  
>
>>Like <customcomponent name="tangent"><c x="0" y="1" z="3.4">.... I think 
>>otherwise it'd be a bit constrained, and people will probably start 
>>storing custom data (like tangents, binormals, special color 
>>assignments, material blend factors, whatever) in places where it's not 
>>supposed to be, just to get it in there somehow. (For example use some 
>>texturecoordinate set that isn't used, or something.) Do I make sense here?
>>    
>>
>
>As noted in some earlier mails we should NOT support general entries. 
>Anyway xml namespaces already provide us with a good way to deal with such 
>issues. You can simply put your special stuff in a separate namespace:
><mysp:strangetangents>
>  <mysp:c x=".." y=".." z=".."/>
>  <!-- ... -->
></mysp:strangetangents>
>
>So far from the technical side. From the practical side we should try to 
>avoid custom extensions at all costs. The results will be that some 
>converters support more features than others, so information is lost 
>between conversion runs and the standard will get very weak. The best 
>solution for customisations is thinking about all important usecases while 
>designing the format. There should be no need to add custom extensions for 
>users/developers. If something is missing then we should try getting into 
>the next version of the spec before the extensions become a 
>"semi-standard".
>  
>
Ah sorry. My girlfriend is here, so I just skim through most mails. :) 
*whipped*

>  
>
>>Also, I'm a bit split about naming the positions "vertices", like from 
>>Matze's example:
>>
>>    <vertices>
>>      <v x="-1" y="-1" z="-1"/>
>>      <v x="1" y="-1" z="-1"/>
>>      <v x="-1" y="1" z="-1"/>
>>      <!-- More vertices come here. -->
>>    </vertices>
>>
>>I see "vertex" as the whole collection of position, normal, texture coordinate, etc. For me "position" or something would be a bit more appropriate. Maybe that's just me. It's not a really important issue to me, just an opinion. :)
>>    
>>
>Hmm true. What about the name "point"?
>
>  
>
Not sure... The reason I'm split about "vertex" is that I don't like the 
name, but still I don't really know any better. :)

/Anders Stenberg