W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > July 2007

erratum for 1.0 object behaviors?

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:17:59 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>, "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>


Thanks for your input.  I'll go though it one-by-one.  But one preliminary 
note (embedded)...

At 01:53 PM 7/9/2007 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote:

>Telecon Minutes - 1/16/2004
>Revision 1 of Dieter's proposal adopts Lofton's comment (See
>).  What is not specified are defaults.    The
>proposal was approved.  Dieter needs to work into the proposal a way to
>zoom to some larger viewcontext than the extents of the primitives (e.g.
>-navigating to a callout number when it doesn't have a viewcontext).  A
>"zoom margin" was suggested, but it would complicate the fragment
>syntax.  Forrest asked about a DOM call of get APS extents, like SVG get
>bounding box.
>*       Ben will write a proposal for get APS extents (alternative:
>zoom margin).

This is not related to 1.0 erratum.  Is it a 2.1 requirement that should be 
addressed?  (Heads up for the CGMO TC.)

>*       Based on the inconsistency that was pointed out by Dieter,
>Lofton will add some wording to the errata.

I'll have a closer look.  It is possible, at this point, that we don't want 
to go in and try to fine tune the 1.0 object behaviors (not even 
clarification), given:

1.) the comprehensive 2.0 approach to object behaviors, including 
2.0-viewer requirements for 1.0 content, and deprecation of some 1.0 stuff.
2.) different vendors made different, explicit choices for how they were 
going to implement 1.0 object behaviors.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I think nothing is gained by 
trying to layer 1.0 errata for object behaviors on top of all this stuff.

Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 00:18:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:40 UTC