Re: WebCGM preview

[Dieter@isodraw.de (Dieter Weidenbrueck)]

Lofton,

please find attached a Word file with the tables. I applied small changes
and added some comments.

Dieter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>
To: "Dieter" <dieter@itedo.com>; <cgmopen-members@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: WebCGM preview


> Dieter,
>
> Preliminary request #1:  could you please redo your first table so that it
> reflects the current Second Release text?  You continue to send versions
> that reflect the original 1/99 text.  The current 2nd release text
> represents what we have discussed and agreed since initial publication,
and
> I consider that it is the only defensible basis for discussing further
change.
>
> Preliminary request #2:  would it be possible to send your two html tables
> as attachments instead of embedded (or in addition to embedded)?  In that
> way, we could edit comments into the table for discussion.  The embedded
> tables also cause some difficulties for my mailer (I can read them, but
> they flatten upon "reply", etc).
>
> I'll make a couple of comments, and will refer to your table by row (1-4)
> and column (1-4).
>
> But ... I think that this is getting to the point where we cannot resolve
> it by email.  I think a conference call is going to be required.  I won't
> be able to do such until next week (mid-late week) at earliest.
>
> At 08:14 PM 5/30/01 +0200, Dieter Weidenbrueck wrote:
> >[...]
> >I hate to come up with major changes at this point, it just shows that I
> >should have thought about it earlier. So here is another table proposing
> >the minimal changes that make sense.
>
> I am apparently missing something.  I don't understand your claim "minimal
> changes that make sense".
>
> R1/C1:  I don't have a problem with your recommendation.  I think it was
> intended, but an oversight.  It is sensible, what one would expect, and
> doesn't contradict anything else.
>
> R2/C1:  The spec already says this, but not precisely.  It doesn't say
> "highlight", it says "indicate visually...".  The intention is plain, but
> it could be said better.
>
> R4/C1:  The current (2nd rel) spec specifically says "no zoom", contrary
to
> your Table 1.
>
> R3/C1:  For consistency with previous, we recently generated a "no zoom"
> editing directive for this case (the region replaces the geometry for
> picking purposes -- i.e., object identification purposes -- it is not in
my
> view a surrogate view context)
>
> >We definitely need to apply changes to make 3.2.1.1. and 3.1.2.4.
> >consistent, one way or the other.
>
> You're losing me here.
>
> I don't see how your new "zoom" prescription of R3/C1, R3/C2, R4/C1, and
> R4/C2 are required for "consistency".  I see no contradiction if they
> remain "no zoom", as they currently are, and as has been discussed and
> decided.  Perhaps I'm missing some statement.  Can you point me to two
> phrases that contradict each other in the current 2nd Release text?  I.e.,
> something that can be implemented because it says "do A" in one place and
> "do B" in another place?
>
> >
> >As far as IsoView is concerned I can still change the implementation to
> >whatever comes out of this discussion. I can go either way without
> >problem. However, I see Harry's good comments, and I know that some of
the
> >current definitions will at least disappoint users.
> >
>
> My preliminary survey of implementators:
>
> 3 do no-zoom on the questionable cases;
> 1 does zoom;
> 1 hasn't responded yet;
> (also I asked Greg at micrografx -- no response yet).
>
> Regards,
> -Lofton.
>

ObjBehavior.doc