RE: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: does the 'highlight' object behavior revert to full-picture view?

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 08:32 AM 6/10/2005 +0200, =?us-ascii?Q?Dieter__Weidenbruck?= wrote:
>[...]
> > ii.) The 'highlight' keyword is useless.  When a program or an
> > XCF issues a
> > 'highlight' behavior, it has no way of knowing what is the present
> > view.  Another DOM or WebCGM or XCF transaction may have changed it.  Or
> > the user may have panned/zoomed the picture with viewer controls.  It is
> > unknowable, in general, whether the target to be highlighted is
> > visible.  Therefore, no one would risk using 'highlight' (or
> > 'highlight_all').  Only 'move_highlight' or 'zoom_highlight' have any
> > usefulness.
>It is not useless in my eyes, it becomes much more powerful now. So far,
>users rarely used this keyword because of the unwanted navigation effects.
>Combinations with navigation are well defined now, so highlight is reserved
>for the cases where the implementor well knows what he is doing.

Did you indeed mean "implementor"?  To me it seems like an issue for 
users/content creators.  What content creator would use such a 
non-navigating "full" keyword in a hyperlink fragment, without any way to 
know how the user may have moved the view with the viewer controls?  If the 
content creators and other users cannot trust the result, who would use "full"?

[Btw, this is ignoring for the moment the "new wrinkle" (issue) I pointed 
out yesterday, that the current picture-behavior wording of the spec does 
not seem to support successive object behaviors being cumulative, even with 
intra-CGM links in the same file.]

-Lofton.