Re: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: what if picseqno is not 1?

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 04:42 PM 10/4/2005 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>Hi Lofton,
>
>I would also leave the spec unchanged. It's clear enough in my
>opinion. Is there a linkuri error processing section in the spec? We
>could always point to it if there is one.

No such section that I can recall.  Probably a bit late to start writing 
and adding one.

If my memory serves me correctly, we decided (9/21) to add an informative 
note, for the benefit of multi-picture cascaded profiles, pointing out what 
WebCGM 1.0 said about the case that 'pictseqno' is greater than the largest 
picture number.

-Lofton.


>Monday, September 19, 2005, 7:05:55 PM, Lofton wrote:
>
>LH> Ref:
>LH> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200509/msg00093.html
>LH> Comments:  21
>LH> ==========
>
>LH> Not a big issue, but it's undefined and there are a couple of possible 
>ways
>LH> to go with it...
>
>LH> QUESTION:  what if picseqno in a WebCGM fragment is greater than 1?
>
>LH> DISCUSSION:  For 'pictseqno' in 3.1.2.1, Dieter suggests to append,
>LH> "If the metafile does not contain a picture with the specified picture
>LH> sequence number, the first (and only) picture in the metafile is chosen."
>
>LH> This is borrowed directly from the similar wording for 
>'pictid'.  There are
>LH> a couple of things about it that bother me.  Firstly, in a WebCGM 
>instance,
>LH> more than one picture is an error and that restriction ("1") is hardwired
>LH> into the EBNF for pictseqno.  So ... why are we defining a fallback for a
>LH> hard error condition in the fragment?  (We typically don't do that, do 
>we?)
>
>LH> One might reply, "...guidance for multi-picture cascaded profiles".  But
>LH> WebCGM 1.0 said this, for pictseqno, "If pictseqno exceeds the number of
>LH> pictures in the metafile, the last picture is displayed."
>
>LH> RECOMMENDATION:  none.
>
>LH> Thoughts?
>
>LH> Regards,
>LH> -Lofton.