Re: [Gnumed-devel] Document part does not exist in the database

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 08:19:09PM -0700, Jim Busser wrote:

> Can the detection and therefore review / signature of empty parts be a 
> warning sign of a mishandled document?
>
> Examples I can think of are:
>
> - a sheet of paper is inserted into a scanner upside down... but if such 
> parts would always be non-zero (i.e. if the part would contain the 
> "blank" scan that still involves a small-sized TIFF or JPEG or PNG) then 
> maybe this does not qualify as a use case

That cannot easily if at all be detected.

> - if a document would, through its syntax, imply an internal part except 
> that the implied or possibly-existing or optionally-existing part has 
> zero content, and is therefore "empty" --- such things I would gladly 
> exclude
OK.

> Are there two levels to this? In other words, even though we might agree 
> that an empty part (by itself) would not auto-generate a pseudo- 
> notification (inbox alert) would the empty parts still show up as  
> unsigned in the document archive? I am still not sure what one would  
> *do* with an empty part --- it seems pointless to acknowledge "nothing" 
> --- but maybe the inspection and signing of related parts would at least 
> make it apparent when an empty part was *supposed* to be nonempty?

I think there is value in preventing empty *parts*. Those do
seem to be a sign of mishap under way.

Now, what about partless documents as treeware index ? Do
you think those should or should not autogenerate
pseudo-notifications ?

Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346