RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Review of WebCGM 2.0 Profile

["Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>]

My responses to Lofton's questions:

---

> T18.4  Transparency  I have a note that 
>   indicates there probably should be a note under “Other” indicating that this 
>   element should be prohibited when the colour model has an alpha 
> channel?

Why?  This element says whether (for example) gaps in dashed lines show what is behind, or show the Auxiliary Colour.  It seems unrelated to the presence of an alpha channel. 

 

This was a note I found in the document Dieter put together on WebCGM 2.0 for the Houston meeting.  Don't know the rational.   

> T20.24  Hatch Index  should this be changed 
>   to Same as model profile: No with a reference 
>   to 6.19 like we do for Line Type?

Unsure.  Unlike Line Type, it is WebCGM Hatch Index is technically identical to MP.  So that argues for "Yes" (same as MP). 

Recommendation:  Leave it "Yes" (same as MP), and put an informative "Note.  See 6.19 for further discussion of hatch interiors in WebCGM."
 

Ok..... 

> T20.27  Edge Type  should this be changed to 
>   Same as model profile: No with a reference 
>   to 6.18 like we do for Line Type?

Unsure.  Is it supposed to match?  Do the registered types make sense for edges?  Some obviously don't, like "break" style, single arrow, double dot.  I suspect that this is intentional, because some of the registered line type values are nonsense as edge types.

Recommendation:  Leave it "Yes" (same as MP), and put an informative "Note.  See 6.18 for further discussion of line and edge type definitions in WebCGM." 

 

Ok... 

> T22.2  Application Data  it’s interesting 
>   that the model profile says “The use of 
>   this element shall not be restricted.” and we prohibit it?

Yes, 
interesting.  That statement was not in the MP of CGM:1992 Amd.2 (the 
original normative PPF, to which WebCGM 1.0 was written).  It somehow got 
added when the PPF (and rules for profiles) were rolled into the CGM:1999 
republication.  I don't know what it means.  And I can't find an 
erratum which indicates that the change should have been made (to CGM:1999 
PPF).

I suggest we ignore it.  Alternately, we could put a note 
indicating the above, or that the specification in the CGM:1999 PPF is suspected 
to be an error.

 OK.,, 
> T25.4  Font substitution  font metrics and 
>   glyph metrics in WebCGM column should probably be aligned with model profile 
>   as Rob noted.

I don't understand this one.  You mean to change "Annex I" to "Annex I.2" or "clause I.2"?  (Btw, I believe "Annex I.2" is the proper ISO style.)

 

Yes, change Annex I to Annex I.2. 

> T26.6  Font substitution  Align WebCGM 
>   column as noted by Rob for references to Font metrics

Ditto.  Do you mean to change "I" to "I.2"?
 

Yes, change Annex I to Annex I.2. 

> 6.16  Symbol Library  should we remove this 
>   section entirely since Symbol Library is now obsolete?  This would 
>   require renumbering and also require adjustments to links in Line Type, Hatch 
>   Index, and Edge Type.

Yes it would.  I don't feel strongly.  Is it better to leave it and indicate that it is 1.0, removed (obsoleted) in 2.0?
 

I would remove it...We deprecated in Release 2 and made it obsolete in 2.0.  To me that implies removal.

 

thx....Dave 
  .