On Thu, Jan 22, 2004, Alexander R. Pruss wrote:
> Why 6?  We only need two bytes of data for the exact location.

The function code Chris suggested has the benefit that we can drop
the old named anchor function code in the future and only use the
new one (but still *support* the old format in the viewer).

A function code that modifies the next function code and must be
used in a specific order is great for making it possible for old
viewers to read new content, but not so good for the Plucker format.

It would also require a strange function code, since it would be
necessary to use 3 bytes of data when only 2 bytes are required. We
don't have enough function codes to "waste" them on a function that
modifies another function and since this is an anchor related function
it should use 00001 for the function, but the normal anchor uses 2
bytes of data, i.e. 00001010 (0x0A) is already taken which leaves us
with the 3 bytes data option.

I think it's great if old viewers can read new content, but it is
more important that new viewers can read old content (and that we
have a consistent Plucker format), so replacing the current named
anchor function code with a new one that also includes the byte
offset for the paragraph should be OK. Plucker is Free Software so
no one is prevented from upgrading to the latest version; anyone
that just *have to* run an older version of Plucker still has the
possibility to re-compile the code with the new function code
handling. The parser could include the possibility to output both
function codes in the next release and then drop the old function
code in the release thereafter. That would provide plenty of time
to update the different viewers.

That is, the new function code would be

  0x0E Named anchor begins (record ID, paragraph offset, byte offset)

Integrate the byte offset handling in the DoNamedAnchor handling
and make sure it can handle both the 0x0C and 0x0E function codes.

/Mike

_______________________________________________
plucker-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev

Reply via email to