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

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

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
> david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com
>
> -----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
> instances.]]]
>
> 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 Risk of it being outdated when the CGM is revised.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:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#alternate-text
> And definitely put an emphasis on the fact that authors should
> update
> the 'content' attribute if the graphical primitives of the APS are
> modified. 

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.