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] COMMENTS: Chapter 3


Lofton,
 
I find that many things are left to further discussion. If we want to get this specification done any time soon, some decision making needs to happening...
 
I'm currently unhappy with what the specification says (it was inserted at the last minute before publication). Thus, my comment.
 
Ben.


From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:24 PM
To: CGM Open WebCGM TC
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] COMMENTS: Chapter 3

At 12:37 PM 5/6/2008 -0400, Bezaire, Benoit wrote:
I thought that at last weeks telecon, most of the vendors (if not all) agreed to have a ACI file in a specific folder/directory that would apply for all CGM files. Not an ACI file for each 'load' operations as currently described by the specification. That was my understanding.

It is my impression that we did not reach a firm decision, but left the issue open for further discussion.

Related issues threads:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200801/msg00021.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200801/msg00025.html

That thread seemed to imply some agreement on a separate, standalone ACI file, with the possibility that it could also be a XCF prelude section (or external reference from XCF prelude).

Then, after that thread the ACI proposal was put into the CD draft, with both PI referencing and #fragment referencing.  Dieter made a detailed critique, and I'm not satisfied that we have answered his specific objections:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200804/msg00037.html

We never did have time for issue discussion/resolution before the CD publication.  So I think we need to sort it out now, with some attention to details and specific objections.

-Lofton.






From: Cruikshank, David W [mailto:david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 12:03 PM
To: Bezaire, Benoit; CGM Open WebCGM TC
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] COMMENTS: Chapter 3

3.1.1.1: As per our latest discussions, an IRI fragment cannot be used to load a ACI file
 
I'm not sure I remember that decision being formalized.  Is it that it "cannot" be used, or the vendors won't support?
 
thx...Dave
 

Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
Boeing Commercial Airplane
206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734
david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com
 


From: Bezaire, Benoit [mailto:bbezaire@ptc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 7:07 AM
To: CGM Open WebCGM TC
Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] COMMENTS: Chapter 3

3.1.1.1: As per our latest discussions, an IRI fragment cannot be used to load a ACI file
3.1.1.2: As per our latest discussions, 'resrcterm' cannot use "aci(", i.e. fragment syntax should be the same as WebCGM 2.0
3.1.1.3: switch "resrcurl" with xcfterm
3.1.1.5: swithc 'resrcterm' with xcfterm, delete references to "Application Configurable Items" and ACI.
3.1.2.7: remove entire section
3.2.1.5 Grnode: should we clarfiy in here if 'grnode' has a bounding box (i.e., geometry)? Supports styling?
3.4: didn't we decide to do something about background: Enable | Disable?
 


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