RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Proposal: deprecate background param

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

If there are no current users or anticipated future users, I'm okay with
getting rid of 'background'.  (However, I don't endorse going
through WebCGM and deprecating everything that seems to be presently
unimplemented!)

I don't have much preference between Benoit's choices, i.) versus
ii.).  IMO, it is probably no harder to bring it ('background') back
in its entirety in the future, versus leaving it as a single-valued
"option" and adding back 'Disabled' later.

Regards,
-Lofton.

At 10:13 AM 2/29/2008 -0600, Forrest Carpenter wrote:

Benoit,

I agree, my vote would be to deprecate the background param entirely.

Forrest

---

From: Bezaire, Benoit [mailto:bbezaire@ptc.com]
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 7:25 AM
To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] Proposal: deprecate background param

 

Hi,

 

I believe there is no implementation of the 'background' param, why keep this in the spec if it's the case?

 

Proposal i) deprecate the background param entirely.

Proposal ii) deprecate the 'Disable' value of the param only.

 

I think I favor (ii). It might be an easier editorial task. It might also be easier to bring back if implementers show interest in the future.

 

Thoughts?

Ben