OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cgmo-webcgm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Issue CL-d6: 2.3.4 content attribute

At 04:33 PM 5/2/2006 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote:
Confirm your agreement with Ben's assessment of this issue.

Benoit's assessment is good.  I embed one comment below...

Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
Boeing Commercial Airplane
206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734  <-- NEW NUMBERS

-----Original Message-----
From: Benoit Bezaire [mailto:benoit@itedo.com]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 7:57 AM
To: CGM Open WebCGM TC
Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] Issue CL-d6: 2.3.4 content attribute

CL wrote:
"Issue CL-d6: [[[2.3.4 WebCGM defined group properties content - an
attribute of the 'para' and 'subpara' APS, that can give a reasonable
basis for searching in the case of badly structured text within WebCGM

Sounds like alt text, what if this is very different to the actual text?
Risk of it being outdated when the CGM is revised. what does 'badly
structured' mean here? "

Unlike alt text, WebCGM user agents do not display the content of
'content' if the graphical primitives cannot be displayed. It's only
purpose is to facilitate documentation/searching operations.

As for the 'very different to the actual text' question, would could add
some guidelines similar to the HTML alt text guidelines:
And definitely put an emphasis on the fact that authors should update
the 'content' attribute if the graphical primitives of the APS are

As I said about CL-d5, I believe we should be careful about saying too much on para, subpara, and content until we know exactly what future requirements these might need to serve.  From my CL-d5 reply...

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.

As for 'badly structured', simply provide an example.

 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.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]