RE: WebCGM preview

[Whittaker Harry W CRBE <WhittakerHW@nswccd.navy.mil>]

Hello everyone,

It appears everyone has been working very hard on CGM issues.
I have been keeping up to date on the recent flurry of e-mail
messages regarding the specification.  So Lofton I take it that
because of procedural changes we are currently tabling some of
Dieter's recent suggestion to the specification?  I understand
all to well what it can do to an author or document when people 
provide comments and suggestions past the cut off date.  But I 
have a serious question to the CGM community and ALL the implementers
in our group.  Taking into account the default behaviors using 
view_context, and object default behaviors, and high light, what 
are the products who have viewers and have viewers integrated doing?

I mean if most of these products have these solutions already coded
and as a community we agree that we like these behaviors, we might
think about delaying the new release a week or two or even a month.
(sorry Lofton)  I am not suggesting a reversal of any previous group
decision.  But if we have to wait a year or two to get the changes 
that we agree are beneficial into the specification verses delaying 
the specification a month, I choose the month delay.

harry


-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:44 PM
To: Dieter; cgmopen-members@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: WebCGM preview


Dieter,

Thanks for the substantial thought and effort you put into this.  However, 
I should note that your table #1, comparison of specifications in 3.1.2.4 
and 3.2.1.1, is taken from the original 1999 text.  Please have a look at 
the current text of 2nd release, which I attached to previous mail.  The 
case of default-obj-behavior, no-viewcontext, no-region (1st column, last 
row) actually says this now in the 2nd Release text:

"The resulting view is a full-picture view, not a zoomed view."

This was a previous (year 2000) decision.   Here are my thoughts on your 
suggestions:

1.  While I appreciate the appeal of making all of this stuff more 
consistent, I am very much against revisiting resolved issues unless there 
is a compelling new reason or argument, particularly at this very late 
(past due!) stage of the 2nd Release (of WebCGM **1.0**).   Your suggested 
"zoom to" behavior in fact reverses last year's decision.

2.  My suggestion was to clarify the case of default-obj-behavior, 
no-viewcontext, region (1st column, 3rd row) consistently with that 
decision -- i.e., the cases only differ in that you highlight the 
primitives if a region is not present, or the region if present.

3.  The suggestions of column 2, rows 3 and 4, actually reverse the 
specification of the 1999 spec (1st release):  "If no ViewContext attribute 
exists in the object, the highlight behavior shall be implemented."  For 
pretty much the same reasons as #1, I don't want to see this done.

If we had had such a nice analysis back in 1998, when we were producing the 
WebCGM REC text, I have no doubt that it would have become the normative 
specification.  I think the functional specifications are fine, and the 
presentation (table) is excellent.

My objections are "procedural" -- making functional changes (no matter how 
appealing) unless a serious defect exists, and revisiting/revising issues 
(the "no-zoom" clarification) at a very late stage, without compelling reasons.

-Lofton.

*******************
Lofton Henderson
1919 Fourteenth St., #604
Boulder, CO   80302

Phone:  303-449-8728
Email:  lofton@rockynet.com
*******************


------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: cgmopen-members-request@lists.oasis-open.org