RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Issue CL-d5: 2.3.2 WebCGM defined group types

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 04:32 PM 5/2/2006 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote:
>  Confirm your agreement with Ben's assessment of this issue.

I agree with most of what Benoit says.  Exception:  "Either we have 
duplicate information (that's my opinion, I think 2.3.2 is saying too much) 
and/or we should like from 2.3.2 to the _real_ definition of all these 
APS".   See next message about that.

Ben's answers are concise and accurate, and I think that they should answer 
Chris's questions.  It occurred to me that he might follow on with "okay, 
then is 'content' a bidi block?".  But as I see it, that would be a 
meaningless question -- 'content' is non-graphical text, it is not text to 
be rendered.

Finally, we don't need to say more unless pressed further.  But we need to 
keep in mind that we purposely underspecified these things in 1.0, to 
reserve our options for future standardization (search, flow text, 
etc).  We thought that would happen in a 2.0, but put it aside again 
(remember flow-text at Cologne?) in order to expedite completion of DOM/XCF 
-- the highest priority requirements.

-Lofton.

>Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
>Boeing Commercial Airplane
>206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734  <-- NEW NUMBERS
>david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Benoit Bezaire [mailto:benoit@itedo.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 7:36 AM
>To: CGM Open WebCGM TC
>Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] Issue CL-d5: 2.3.2 WebCGM defined group types
>
>CL wrote: "[[[ 2.3.2 WebCGM defined group types para - (paragraph) an
>APS type to facilitate text search within graphics, in cases such as
>multi-element, multi-line text, and other cases (e.g., polygonized text)
>where text search might otherwise be difficult (or impossible).]]]
>
>Is that a block, in terms of bidi and in terms of text to speech? Is
>subpara a block or an inline (span)?"
>
>---
>
>Interestingly enough Chris' comment comes in after reading section
>2.3.2 and not 3.2.1.3
>
>To me, this identifies a problem in the spec. Either we have duplicate
>information (that's my opinion, I think 2.3.2 is saying too much) and/or
>we should like from 2.3.2 to the _real_ definition of all these APS
>(i.e., 3.2...).
>
>Now, assuming a reader has the same question after reading 3.2.1.3 and
>3.2.1.4...  Note: my understanding of RESTRICTED TEXT and APPEND TEXT is
>limited.
>
>Q: Is that a block, in terms of bidi and in terms of text to speech?
>A: 'para' is not a text element, it is a grouping mechanism which allows
>certain object attributes; more specifically the 'content'
>attribute for this particular object type (see 3.2.1.3). RESTRICTED TEXT
>and APPEND TEXT define the WebCGM text features (see T.19.5, T.19.6).
>
>Q: Is subpara a block or an inline (span)?
>A: 'subpara' like 'para' is not a text element, but a grouping object
>which allows for the 'content' attribute to be specified. (see
>3.2.1.4)
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>  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.