Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Issue CL-c10: 3.1.2.7 Summary of behaviors

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 03:16 PM 3/23/2006 -0500, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>link: 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cgmo-webcgm/download.php/17342/CL-comments.html#CL-c10
>
>Personally, I find the 3.1.2.7 table extremely difficult to
>understand. I think only a handful of people can figure out what it
>means exactly.

It doesn't actually *mean* anything.  It is intended to be a directory to 
all of the locations around the document, where the rules of picBehavior, 
objBehavior, linkuri, etc are defined.

I guess it fails in its goal to clarify.


>If it were up to me, I'd probably take it out.

I would rather replace it with something clearer.  Because I think it is 
pretty difficult to find all of the rules you need to know, for example, to 
decide whether a picBehavior in a CGM-to-CGM link should be in the 
'picterm' part of the fragment or in the 3rd parameter of the 'linkuri'.

I would suggest we assign someone to rewrite the table as (for example) a 
pair of bullet lists, with a few more words and with links.


>What information is it trying to convey the reader?

See above (it is merely a directory, about where to find all of the 
information for constructing links and behaviors, for different types of 
source and destination media.


>Here's a link to the CDF (Compound Document by Reference Framework
>1.0) Working Draft: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-CDR-20051219/
>
>W3C is defining a set of rules for link activation within embedded
>formats: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-CDR-20051219/#link-activation
>
>Since WebCGM 2.0 is often going to be embedded in XHTML, we should
>probably get up to speed on that section...

Yes, we should.  Let's make an assignment (at next telecon), to review and 
report back.  Unless someone wants to volunteer now.

Volunteers?

Btw, here is a place where we need to be careful.  Chris is implying that 
WebCGM 2.0 needs to be compliant with CDF.  Well, CDF wasn't even a glimmer 
in anyone's eye at the time of WebCGM 1.0, nor in the writing of the 2.0 
requirements.  It is not a requirement from the people who want WebCGM 2.0, 
it is a requirement from the architects of the W3C family of 
standards.  (CharMod compliance, sRGB, color compositing, etc are similar 
-- W3C requirements to which 1.0 paid only token attention).

So there is potential for spending time and effort on something that 
matters little to the 2.0 constituency (whereas getting 2.0 finished 
quickly matters A LOT!)

That said, I agree that we must educate ourselves, before we argue against 
it.  (Which self-education we didn't pay sufficient attention to on the IRI 
question, causing the CL-c1 2nd pgph hassle.)

-Lofton.