Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Re:

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 11:18 AM 7/8/2004 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>Tuesday, July 6, 2004, 6:40:05 PM, Lofton wrote:
>[...]
>LH> If entities are allowed, then I think "yes".  Suppose the viewer DOM
>LH> implementation builds and maintains the DOM tree including the application
>LH> metadata.  If entities have been used in the latter, how can the DOM
>LH> implementation possibly be of any use if the entities aren't resolved?
>
>LH> (Question...  I don't recall -- what if anything does standard DOM2/3 say
>LH> about it?)
>I'll have to check, I'm really not an expert on this matter.  If
>someone had a small example we could all look at, it could help.

I'm travelling and a bit short of focus, so maybe later.  But conceptually, 
imagine that an application parameterizes some aspect of a companion file, 
and uses an entity to define the parameter value.  E.g, by changing the 
value of the entity, perhaps for example the model number of an aircraft 
(and associated data file links) are changed.

Clearly, failure to do entity substitution renders the file 
worthless.  Therefore:

1.) either prohibit entities in WebCGM XML companion files;
2.) or require that conforming WebCGM DOM implementations must handle entities.

>[...]
> >>   -Do we need relatedTarget on the Event interface?  I believe that
> >>   some of the existing API offer something like this?  Is it needed,
> >>   is it useful?
>
>...Dieter and I talked about this one a bit.  We don't think we need
>relatedTarget, target should be sufficient.  The changes will be in
>the next draft (with explanations).

Fair enough.  (Just to be safe, why not directly ask vendors of "some of 
the existing API", to confirm that they're happy without it?)

>[...]
>LH> "WebCGM user space" suggests VDC to me.  On other interfaces and methods,
>LH> haven't we decided that VDC should be avoided, because VDC require the
>LH> context of VDC Extent?
>Right, I know we agreed to have (0,0) at the bottom left section of
>the illustration... but what are the (right,top) values?

100%,100%.

Or some Xmm, Ymm.  Question (anyone):  didn't we decide, in comments on 
earlier drafts, that this Xmm, Ymm is interpreted relative to the width-mm 
and height-mm dimensions of the VDC extent?

-Lofton.