RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Viewer Identification - One Question

[Dieter Weidenbrück <dieter@itedo.com>]

how about a recommended call outside the WebCGM Dom?

Vendors could implement it using the same syntax then. I wouldn't make it a
part of the DOM, unless we start adding "hasFeature" or something similar.

Regards,
Dieter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DULUC, Franck [mailto:franck.duluc@airbus.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:11 AM
> To: CGM Open WebCGM TC
> Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Viewer Identification - One Question
>
>
>
>
> Ben, Lofton, all,
>
>
> I understand your point. It is completly true that there is a
> risk to enable behavios like the one you described with your
> small javascript sample. Maybe a function returning nothing but
> displaying the name of the plugin could be a workaround.
>
> However as I said, I have no strong opinion. It was only one of
> this wonderful monday morning thoughts. ;-P
>
> Regards,
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Benoit Bezaire [mailto:benoit@itedo.com]
> Envoyé : lundi 2 mai 2005 20:01
> À : CGM Open WebCGM TC
> Objet : Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Viewer Identification - One Question
>
>
> Hi Franck,
>
> I don't have a strong opinion on this... You are asking for a
> 'getPluginVersion()' method, right?
>
> Ideally, those are not suppose to be part of standards since we are
> trying to avoid things like this:
>
> if( getPluginVersion() == "a specific plugin" )
> {
>   do stuff...
> }
> else
>   alert( "a specific plugin is required to view this page" );
>
> On the other hand, all implementations have minor bugs and such a
> function can be useful.
>
> I think the question really is: Should this be a documented API or
> not?
>
> I have no opinion on the matter.
>
> --
>  Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com
>
>
> Monday, May 2, 2005, 8:21:54 AM, Franck wrote:
>
> DF> Hi all,
>
> DF> A question came up to my mind recently and I would like to
> get your thought on it.
>
> DF> We are nomarlizing, through this huge DOM effort, a lot of
> function calls.
>
> DF> Some viewers I know provide a function call allowing to get
> DF> the identification of the viewer. Then comes my question: will
> DF> itbe interesting to normalize this kind of function call?
>
> DF> I personnaly think yes, however I am not sure this is
> DF> completly in the intention of the DOM and may also bring trouble
> DF> when trying to put it somewhere in hte current draft.
>
> DF> Any thoughts?
>
> DF> Franck DULUC
> DF> Technical Data Research Manager
> DF> Customer Services - SDND
> DF> AIRBUS France
>
> DF> Phone: +33 (0)5 61 18 19 16
> DF> Fax: +33 (0)5 61 93 59 44
> DF> mailto:franck.duluc@airbus.com
>
> DF> Address:
> DF> BP D0611, 316, route de Bayonne
> DF> 31060 TOULOUSE Cedex, FRANCE
>
>
> DF> This e-mail is intended only for the above addressee. It may contain
> DF> privileged information. If you are not the addressee you must
> not copy,
> DF> distribute, disclose or use any of the information in it. If you have
> DF> received it in error please delete it and immediately notify
> the sender.
> DF> Security Notice: all e-mail, sent to or from this address, may be
> DF> accessed by someone other than the recipient, for system
> management and
> DF> security reasons. This access is controlled under Regulation of
> DF> Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Lawful Business Practises.
>
>
>
>
> This mail has originated outside your organization,
> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> This e-mail is intended only for the above addressee. It may contain
> privileged information. If you are not the addressee you must not copy,
> distribute, disclose or use any of the information in it. If you have
> received it in error please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
> Security Notice: all e-mail, sent to or from this address, may be
> accessed by someone other than the recipient, for system management and
> security reasons. This access is controlled under Regulation of
> Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Lawful Business Practises.
>