[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]