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: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>
- To: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>, "CGM Open WebCGM TC" <cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:01:33 -0700
My responses to Lofton's
questions:
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.
This
was a note I found in the document Dieter put together on WebCGM 2.0 for
the Houston meeting. Don't know the
rational.
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."
Ok.....
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."
Ok...
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.
OK.,,
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.)
Yes,
change Annex I to Annex I.2.
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"?
Yes, change Annex I to Annex
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?
I
would remove it...We deprecated in Release 2 and made it obsolete in 2.0.
To me that implies removal.
thx....Dave
.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]