RE: Default Object Behavior

[Ulrich Laesche <ulaesche@allegria.com>]

Lofton,

As the Toulouse meeting will commence on Sunday(?) or Monday it needs to be
Thursday or Friday.  On the other hand, your proposal sounds fine for me.
I will be available for a phone conference but could live without it.

Ulrich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 9:33 AM
> To: cgmopen-members@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Default Object Behavior
>
>
> CGM Open Members --
>
> We have to come to a resolution on this issue.  I think a
> conference will
> be required.
>
> Last week we had some discussion about clarifying some default object
> behaviors.  The scope opened up a bit, and Dieter has made a
> suggestion for
> a change to the WebCGM 1.0 specification for Second Release (see
> his email
> w/ attached tables).  In particular, there are cases where the
> behavior is
> currently clearly specified, where Dieter requests a change:  basically
> from "full-picture view, highlight object", to "zoom-to-object,
> highlight
> object".
>
> I implied last week that my own position was -- don't care, but
> procedural
> objections.  Upon thinking about it from a user perspective, I
> have decided
> that I do have a preference, and that is:  per current spec
> (full-picture
> view & highlight).  I have talked with at least one other user who feels
> the same (apparently strongly).
>
> My informal survey of implementors show that all others do it per the
> current spec.
>
> So this needs to be talked out, and we need to have a clear majority
> supporting change.  Furthermore, I suspect that any single
> resolution will
> leave someone unhappy.  Therefore...
>
> I have been pondering a compromise position:
>
> 1. First (and somewhat independently, but related) the spec needs to say
> something like, "In interaction-capable environments, WebCGM
> viewers shall
> be capable of zoom and pan operations, and shall offer zoom and pan
> controls to the user."  This is implicit, I think, but we never say
> it.  The words I chose are similar to what SVG says.
>
> 2. Now the compromise.  We could leave the spec as is (except to
> clarify as
> needed) and define it as default behavior of conforming viewers.  But we
> could add something like:  "Viewers shall (should?) have an
> operating mode
> or option whereby [...reverse the default to "zoom-to-object" on the
> disputed cases...]"  I didn't fill in the words of the [...]
> portion, but
> you get the idea.  Viewers would have to be capable of doing it
> both ways,
> with current 1.0 First Release spec as the normal default.
>
> Does this look like a useful approach?  (It is an odd
> specification to put
> in, but perhaps we could add a non-normative note indicating
> that it is for
> the purpose of "accommodating certain legacy implementations and
> content".)
>
> Who wants to participate in a conference and when (it needs to
> be Thursday
> or later)?
>
> -Lofton.
>
> *******************
> Lofton Henderson
> 1919 Fourteenth St., #604
> Boulder, CO   80302
>
> Phone:  303-449-8728
> Email:  lofton@rockynet.com
> *******************
>
>