Re: WebCGM Implementors -- IMPT!

[Dieter@isodraw.de (Dieter Weidenbrueck)]

I agree with layerdesc

Dieter


----- Original Message -----
From: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>
To: <cgmopen-members@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 6:48 PM
Subject: WebCGM Implementors -- IMPT!


> WebCGM Implementors --
>
> (Attn especially Forrest, Don, Dieter, Ulrich, Kevin, Lofton)
>
> Please respond asap, and make sure to copy Dave Cruikshank.
>
> Today is the day we are finishing the Second Release text and forwarding
it
> (we *must* do so today, or risk significant [weeks] more delay).  Of
> course, we found another small glitch!  I will propose a resolution, but
> also I think that "majority of implementations" should rule.
>
> Problem:
>
> ** In Chapter 2/figure 2, and in Chapter 3/3.3 (dtd), it is 'layerdesc'.
>
> ** In 2.3.4 and 3.2.2.5, it is 'layerdescription'.
>
> There is little to recommend one over the other, except that layerdesc
> would be the only case amongst the 8 attributes where the name is
> abbreviated (a weak rationale, I'd say).
>
> The one implementation I know of is MetaCheck 5.18, whose webCGM profile
> checking looks for 'layerdesc'.  It also seems to me, as we went through
> the "case" issue on the ApsAttr types, that most people took their
> definitive lists from section 3.3, the DTD.
>
> Therefore I recommend the resolution:  'layerdesc'
>
> Please tell me (and Dave) by the end of the day, what does your
> implementation do?  (If anything -- I suspect that layer functionality is
> not widely implemented yet).
>
> Regards,
> Lofton.
>
>
> *******************
> Lofton Henderson
> 1919 Fourteenth St., #604
> Boulder, CO   80302
>
> Phone:  303-449-8728
> Email:  lofton@rockynet.com
> *******************
>
>