RE: yet another question

[Kevin O'Kane <kevoka@AUTO-TROL.com>]

	"That is, we are explicitly leaving room for people to build private

	applications using WebCGM viewers and WebCGM files, whose behavior
is 
	outside the specifications of WebCGM 1.0?"

	In my opinion, the answer is yes.

	Kevin

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Lofton Henderson [SMTP:lofton@rockynet.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, May 31, 2001 10:26 AM
> To:	cgmopen-members@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject:	yet another question
> 
> In section 3.2.1.1, it is written:
> 
> "1. If the object does not contain a 'region' attribute and contains no a 
> LinkURI attributes no further action is required. "
> 
> This is in the discussion of pick behavior.  It is my recollection and 
> interpretation, that "...no further action is required" does *not* imply 
> "non-action is mandated".  I.e., it is valid for a viewer to highlight
> such 
> an object on mouseover, for example.  And, someone could write a 
> companion-file application where a click on such an object actually caused
> 
> something to happen.
> 
> That is, we are explicitly leaving room for people to build private 
> applications using WebCGM viewers and WebCGM files, whose behavior is 
> outside the specifications of WebCGM 1.0?
> 
> Comments?
> 
> -Lofton.
> 
> P.S.  The test suite raised this question, again.  As interpreted above, 
> there are no testable statements.  If interpreted as, "...it is required 
> that the viewer take no action" -- which I don't believe to be the case --
> 
> the a test is possible. 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: cgmopen-members-request@lists.oasis-open.org