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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cgmopen-members message

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

Subject: Re: WebCGM preview


Thanks for the substantial thought and effort you put into this.  However, 
I should note that your table #1, comparison of specifications in 
and, is taken from the original 1999 text.  Please have a look at 
the current text of 2nd release, which I attached to previous mail.  The 
case of default-obj-behavior, no-viewcontext, no-region (1st column, last 
row) actually says this now in the 2nd Release text:

"The resulting view is a full-picture view, not a zoomed view."

This was a previous (year 2000) decision.   Here are my thoughts on your 

1.  While I appreciate the appeal of making all of this stuff more 
consistent, I am very much against revisiting resolved issues unless there 
is a compelling new reason or argument, particularly at this very late 
(past due!) stage of the 2nd Release (of WebCGM **1.0**).   Your suggested 
"zoom to" behavior in fact reverses last year's decision.

2.  My suggestion was to clarify the case of default-obj-behavior, 
no-viewcontext, region (1st column, 3rd row) consistently with that 
decision -- i.e., the cases only differ in that you highlight the 
primitives if a region is not present, or the region if present.

3.  The suggestions of column 2, rows 3 and 4, actually reverse the 
specification of the 1999 spec (1st release):  "If no ViewContext attribute 
exists in the object, the highlight behavior shall be implemented."  For 
pretty much the same reasons as #1, I don't want to see this done.

If we had had such a nice analysis back in 1998, when we were producing the 
WebCGM REC text, I have no doubt that it would have become the normative 
specification.  I think the functional specifications are fine, and the 
presentation (table) is excellent.

My objections are "procedural" -- making functional changes (no matter how 
appealing) unless a serious defect exists, and revisiting/revising issues 
(the "no-zoom" clarification) at a very late stage, without compelling reasons.


Lofton Henderson
1919 Fourteenth St., #604
Boulder, CO   80302

Phone:  303-449-8728
Email:  lofton@rockynet.com

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC