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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-comment message

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

Subject: dr3d terminology issues


There are a number of terminology problems with the dr3d attributes. The 
following is illustrative and not exhaustive:

> |dr3d:edge-rounding-mode| attribute specifies how to generate rounded 
> edges.
> The values of this attribute are:
>    *
>       |attractive| - the outer faceplates of extruded objects are
>       preserved, but inner faceplates are 'grown' in normal direction
>    *
>       |correct| - faceplates of extruded objects are linearly scaled
>       smaller, but the original polygons are kept for the object outline
Note that "attractive," "correct," "faceplates," and "grown" are unknown 
at www.web3d.org. You will find ISO standards for X3D at:

Or consider:

> The |dr3d:lighting-mode| attribute specifies the lighting algorithm 
> used to render a 3D object.
> The value of this attribute can be |standard| or |double-sided|. If 
> the value is |double-sided|, the reverse sides of the object are also 
> lighted.
We may have to use these attribute values but we should define them 
using standard terminology. X3D speaks variously of "front" or "back" 
face, "front" or "back" side.

Or consider:

> The |dr3d:max-edge| attribute specifies the maximum edge of a cube in 
> a 3D space.
> The |dr3d:min-edge| attribute specifies the minimum edge of a cube in 
> a 3D space.
As far as I can tell, the terms "maximum edge" and "minimum edge" do not 
occur in X3D.

Searching more broadly, it appears that "maximum edge" and "minimum 
edge" may refer to maximum edge length and minimum edge length, but I 
can't say for sure.

In the short run, this version, I don't think we can do more than simply 
provide definitions for the terms we use. In the long run, deprecating 
dr3d entirely and adopting X3D by reference would be the better solution.

Then applications can claim conformance to ODF and as much (or as 
little) of X3D as they care to implement.

It would have the added advantage that I would not have to worry about 
what X3D says since that would be some other editor's problem. ;-)

Hope everyone is having a great weekend!


PS: To "discuss" these issues, please use the 
office@lists.oasis-open.org mailing list.

Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

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