In bug 62's attachment, Stan wrote:
1. The sentence "the [force_field] provides a general container for force fields" is the linguistic version of infinite recursion.
The container for force fields would be library_force_field.
force_field was never discussed within the physics working group. I've never seen it used.
2. No "common" profile.
3. No [useful] example.
4. I don't see how this section could be fixed.
1a. Change intro sentence to "Provides a general container for an application-defined force field."
1b. This still doesn't say what a force field is or does conceptually. Any suggestions?
2. This is a schema issue--should we open a bug/enh request?
3. There's an empty example--shows possible syntax but no actual useful data that would make it an informative example. Need such an example. (Not sure from where if no one is using it.)
4a. Change phrasing in Details to:
Currently there is no COMMON profile (<technique_common>) for
<force_field>. The <technique> element can
contain any well-formed XML data. Usage of <force_field> is application dependent.
4b. In example, add id="my_force_field" to <force_field>--makes it match up with instance_force_field example.