cgmo-webcgm message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Review of WebCGM 2.0 Profile
- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- To: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>,"CGM Open WebCGM TC" <cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:01:14 -0600
At 12:56 AM 10/5/2005 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote:
Here's my review of column 2 of the
PPF for WebCGM 2.0
Thanks for the review.
I look at all of them. Most are obviously editorial. A couple
probably need a quick look, to sort out the best correction:
T.18.4
T.20.24
T.20.27
T.22.2
Section 6.16
Plus I was unclear exactly what you were suggesting on T.25.4 and
T.26.6.
Comments embedded...
Review
of WebCGM 2.0 PPF concentrating on column 2, WebCGM
requirements
For most of
the entries in column 2 that Rob already caught as not matching the
wording in the model profile column, I defer to Rob’s
corrections.
T13.2 Number of
pictures should be Same as model profile:
No
Right, WebCGM is a 1-picture profile, as clearly stated in Ch.2 and Ch.3,
and in the details box of the PPF. So "No" is an
editorial oversight.
T16.3
VDC Type should be Same as model profile:
Yes Rob
caught this, too.
Clearly it must be "Yes", since the details box is
empty.
T18.4
Transparency I have a note that indicates there probably should be
a note under “Other” indicating that this element should be prohibited
when the colour model has an alpha channel?
Why? This element says whether (for example) gaps in dashed lines
show what is behind, or show the Auxiliary Colour. It seems
unrelated to the presence of an alpha channel.
T18.8
Marker Clipping Mode there is a string “P>” preceding the first
question
Fixed.
T18.9
Edge Clipping Mode there is a string “P>” preceding the first
question
Fixed.
T20.24
Hatch Index should this be changed to Same as model profile:
No
with a reference to 6.19 like we do for Line
Type?
Unsure. Unlike Line Type, it is WebCGM Hatch Index is technically
identical to MP. So that argues for "Yes" (same as
MP).
Recommendation: Leave it "Yes" (same as MP), and put an
informative "Note. See 6.19 for further discussion of hatch
interiors in WebCGM."
T20.27
Edge Type should this be changed to Same as model profile:
No
with a reference to 6.18 like we do for Line
Type?
Unsure. Is it supposed to match? Do the registered types make
sense for edges? Some obviously don't, like "break"
style, single arrow, double dot. I suspect that this is
intentional, because some of the registered line type values are nonsense
as edge types.
Recommendation: Leave it "Yes" (same as MP), and put an
informative "Note. See 6.18 for further discussion of line and
edge type definitions in WebCGM."
T20.44
Edge Cap should be Same as model profile -
No Rob
caught this, too.
Right. Clearly it should be "no", since the details in
the box differ from the MP.
T22.2
Application Data it’s interesting that the model profile says
“The use of this element shall not
be restricted.” and we prohibit
it?
Yes, interesting. That statement was not in the MP of CGM:1992
Amd.2 (the original normative PPF, to which WebCGM 1.0 was
written). It somehow got added when the PPF (and rules for
profiles) were rolled into the CGM:1999 republication. I don't know
what it means. And I can't find an erratum which indicates that the
change should have been made (to CGM:1999 PPF).
I suggest we ignore it. Alternately, we could put a note indicating
the above, or that the specification in the CGM:1999 PPF is suspected to
be an error.
T25.4
Font substitution font metrics and glyph metrics in WebCGM column
should probably be aligned with model profile as Rob
noted.
I don't understand this one. You mean to change "Annex I"
to "Annex I.2" or "clause I.2"? (Btw, I believe
"Annex I.2" is the proper ISO style.)
T26.6
Font substitution Align WebCGM column as noted by Rob for
references to Font metrics
Ditto. Do you mean to change "I" to
"I.2"?
6.16
Symbol Library should we remove this section entirely since Symbol
Library is now obsolete? This would require renumbering and also
require adjustments to links in Line Type, Hatch Index, and Edge
Type.
Yes it would. I don't feel strongly. Is it better to leave it
and indicate that it is 1.0, removed (obsoleted) in 2.0?
Regards,
-Lofton.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]