OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cgmo-webcgm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] 1.0 tests modified for 2.0


At 09:40 AM 2/14/2006 +0100, Dieter  Weidenbrück wrote:
>Lofton,
>
>I can see your point, however
>
>- we considered the 1.0 "default" behavior (full+highlight) to be a flaw

Can you point me to a record of this?  (I never considered it to be a flaw.)

>- we considered zoom+highlight the much more logical thing to do if
>   navigation to an object is desired

I don't agree, especially for the first view into a picture, even if there 
is an object target.  But I don't want to argue that again.


>BTW, IsoView NEVER did it "right", we always used zoom+highlight.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

>This is
>certainly not a reason to do it this way, however, given the widespread
>use of our viewer not too many customers will be surprised by a change
>as described, just the opposite: if we would change the IsoView behavior,
>it would certainly puzzle our users, as they would loose the only way
>to navigate to an object if no explicit viewcontext attr is defined on the
>objects.

My point is:
** the 1.0 default is easy enough to specify in 2.0;
** it was clearly specified in 1.0 as the conformance requirement for 1.0;
** most implementations already implement it (as specified in 1.0);
** [opinion -- it is a reasonable default behavior]
** therefore it was not *necessary* to change it;
** so we forcing most implementations to change their behavior on what is 
arguably the most common usage in existing (1.0) legacy content.

To me, it adds up to a bad idea.

-Lofton.


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 9:44 PM
> > To: dieter@itedo.com; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] 1.0 tests modified for 2.0
> >
> > At 08:46 AM 2/13/2006 +0100, Dieter  Weidenbrück wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:09 PM
> > > > To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] 1.0 tests modified for 2.0
> > > >
> > > > Information, and QUESTION/ISSUE (for email and for next
> > telecon)...
> > > >
> > > > On FTS:  webcgm20-ts-20060212.zip
> > > >
> > > > I have started modifying the 1.0 (rel-1.1) dynamic tests, for 2.0
> > > > correctness, according to the assessment I sent a while
> > ago.  I will
> > > > keep doing this, and periodically put up new zip files.
> > > >
> > > > In this batch, changed tests are:
> > > > * linking-selectID-BE-05
> > > > * linking-selectName-BE-06
> > > > * linking-anyURI-BE-07
> > > >
> > > > You can view them by opening the IntroPage.html and
> > navigating from
> > > > there.
> > > >
> > > > These three tests have something in common:  they have navigation
> > > > (links) to objects, but no specified object behaviors.  Therefore
> > > > they use the default object behavior.
> > > > We changed the default object behavior for 2.0.  In 1.0, it was
> > > > effectively zoom+newHighlight (with a small wrinkle about
> > > > presence/absence of a 'viewcontext' ApsAttr on the target).
> > > >
> > > > Therefore you will see this:
> > > >
> > > > 1.) a 1.0 viewer showing the 1.0 file (in the 1.0 Test
> > Suite) should
> > > > give unzoomed view, highlighted object.
> > >yes
> > > >
> > > > 2.) a 2.0 viewer showing the 2.0 file should give zoomed view,
> > > > highlighted object.
> > >yes
> > > >
> > > > 3.) QUESTION.  what about a 2.0 viewer on the 1.0 file?
> > > > Should it detect the version of the CGM (target) and do #1 or
> > > > #2 accordingly?
> > >We defined a mapping for 2.0 viewers for 1.0 behaviors. Once the
> > >behaviors got mapped, the viewer needs to show the correct
> > behavior for
> > >the 2.0 behaviors.
> >
> > Yes, the 1.0 default is 'view_context', which 2.0 (CS) says to map to
> > zoom+newHighlight, regardless of the attributes of the target
> > object.
> > zoom+I'm
> > going to question whether we goofed here...
> >
> > The 1.0 'view_context' object behavior is this:
> > a.) zoom+newHighlight if there is a 'viewcontext' ApsAttr on
> > the target object;
> > b.) full+newHighlight if not.
> >
> > I would be tempted to argue that, in real-world 1.0 content,
> > there will be many more default cases of type #b (no
> > 'viewcontext' ApsAttr present) than
> > type #a, which is the single default we chose for 2.0.   From
> > a standpoint
> > of user-friendliness, it would seem better not to introduce a
> > dramatic viewing change to what I guess to be the
> > preponderance of WebCGM 1.0 content in the real world.
> >
> > Reinforcing this, the default cases in the 1.0 test suite
> > don't have 'viewcontext' ApsAttr present.  I'm questioning
> > the wisdom of a specification that is not actually necessary
> > and that forces a change of behavior by all conforming 2.0
> > viewers on virtually all default cases in the test suite, and
> > (IMO) most default cases in the real world.
> >
> > Remind me, why did we not simply copy this behavior (a plus
> > b) for the 2.0 default?  All 1.0 viewers could do it, with no
> > changes.  It is not as simple to write down as a single value
> > ...  but it's already implemented!.
> >
> > It was not until I started working on the test suite that the
> > 2.0 default began to bother me (this is the value of a TS,
> > and it would have been nice if we had had the resources to
> > upgrade it concurrently with the spec).  About 1/4 of the
> > tests are affected.
> >
> > Bottom line -- I can't imagine 1.0 users being very happy,
> > when their vendor upgrades their viewer to 2.0, that all of
> > their 1.0 content starts behaving differently.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -Lofton.
> >
> >
> >
> >




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]