RE: [office-comment] draw:extrusion-first-light-harsh (ODF all versions)

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Alex Brown" <alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk> wrote on 04/24/2009 10:27:46 AM:


> Rob hi 
> 
> > The concept of soft 
> > versus harsh light has been around since at least Caravaggio 
> > (1571-1610). This is not a term specific to computer 
> > graphics.  It is a general term referring to scene lighting 
> > and we use it in its ordinary sense. 
> 
> Just because a term has been around for a long time and is thought to be
> well-understood in an "ordinary sense", does not make it suitable for a
> technical specification - otherwise we'd be okay describing things
> shapes as "good", "graceful", "beautiful" etc.
> 


I disagree.  You need to look at the scope of the standard and what 
expectations for interoperability for a particular feature.  ODF is not a 
PDF.  ODF is not JPG.  The scope does not call for pixel perfection. We're 
representing documents at a higher level, fully aware that there will be 
some rendering differences in the details.  We are not obligated to define 
exactly what colorimetric value is required when we say something is 
"red".  We are not obligated to specify the exact radius of curvature when 
we say a text box has "rounded edges".  And we do not need to specify the 
exact size, in steradians, of a harsh light source.

The question is whether the text specifies requirements to a degree that 
the desired balance has been met, between having enough specificity to 
allow implementors to meet interoperability expectations of users, without 
over-specifying to the degree that it raises implementation costs without 
appreciable user benefit. And remember, over-specifying can reduce 
interoperability as well, by tying a feature closely to a particular 
rendering environment. 

The question of exactly what the desired balance should be is a question 
for the ODF TC to decide when we review your comment.


-Rob