On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Gabriel Casulari da Motta Ribeiro
<gabrielcasulari@poli.ufrj.br> wrote:
> Thomas,
>
>     I tested the validator with my own urdf files and I have some comments.

Great! Sorry for the delay in answering your mail.

>     My robots were using gazebo extension to define some cameras and lasers,
> and as expected these aren't validated. I undestand the conceptual changes
> on the urdf definitions and the use of the Sensor type, but this is not
> defined on the schema too. Is it intentional? Why?

Well, because in the ideal case I would like to make seperate scheme
for each extension
and make a proper use of XML namespaces to keep them separated.
However, in the current
state of the parser I am not sure whether if this is possible or not.

As this is a more of a mid-term goal you can send me a pull request
for a patch implementing this.

>    The other comment is about the sensor attributes for laser, there is no
> min and max range for distance readings. I think this information is
> important to define which sensor is used and select the application.

You mean changing the urdf c++ parser to add this attribute?
Then I am not the one to decide here and I'll let the URDF authors
commenting this.

(if I misunderstood and you mean that this attribute is already
standard, aka somewhere
in the wiki and supported by the parser, then go ahead and send a pull request)

-- 
Thomas Moulard