[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Re[3]: [cgmo-webcgm] Issue CL-c2: Can a WebCGM 2.0 picture link to a multi-picture
Reply is below > -----Original Message----- > From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 7:14 AM > To: Benoit Bezaire; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re[3]: [cgmo-webcgm] Issue CL-c2: Can a WebCGM 2.0 > picture link to a multi-picture > > 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. Or are you > saying that we decided not to change it any more, after that change? > > > >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. > > Yes, let's hear from others. > > -Lofton. > I think that if removing picseqno=1 from the EBNF and enforcing the rule for 2.0 a different way simplifies the problem it sounds like a good thing to do. I also like the fact that defining a multi picture profile is simplified as well. -- Stuart Galt SGML Resource Group stuart.a.galt@boeing.com (206) 544-3656
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]