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

[Dieter Weidenbrück <dieter@itedo.com>]

I agree with removing the picseqno="1" from the EBNF, and to
return to the 1.0 version, as far as this part of the EBNF is concernced. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 5:35 PM
> To: Benoit Bezaire; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re[4]: [cgmo-webcgm] Issue CL-c2: Can a WebCGM 2.0 
> picture link to a multi-picture
> 
> At 10:34 AM 3/24/2006 -0500, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
> >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!
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> So it's a mistake that no one noticed before Chris's comment 
> ... let's undo it.
> 
> AFTER we hear from others, that is.
> 
> -Lofton
> 
> 
> > >>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.
> 
> 
>