Re[4]: [cgmo-webcgm] Issue CL-c2: Can a WebCGM 2.0 picture link to a multi-picture

[Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>]

Friday, March 24, 2006, 10:14:25 AM, you wrote:

> At 09:11 AM 3/24/2006 -0500, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>>Hi Lofton,
>>
>>We did decide not to change the EBNF. I don't feel like searching all
>>the minutes for that resolution though. It was agreed upon so that
>>_most_ 1.0 files could be handled easily by a 2.0 viewer.

> Well, picseqno=1 *is* a change to 1.0 EBNF.
Yes it is... and yet the spec say and I quote "For backward
compatibility with existing viewer implementations, the fragment
syntax is unchanged with regard to the picterm." which is not true!

> Or are you saying that we decided not to change it any more, after
> that change? 
I'm saying we decided to make as few changes as possible. Actually I
don't recall how this picseqno=1 change made it in there? But it
doesn't matter, that's the situation we have now and that's what we
have to deal with.

>>I personally have no objections for removing the picseqno=1
>>restriction to make this problem go away. Others have to express their
>>opinion though.

> It seems so much cleaner, not to mention making life easier for
> cascading multi-pic profiles, and it doesn't change any rules about
> 2.0 being single-pic. 
I agree.

> Yes, let's hear from others.
Please.

> -Lofton.

-- 
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected
by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or
any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and
delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.