W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > December 2008

re[3]: Question about setView()

From: Don <dlarson@cgmlarson.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:01:19 -0600
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, "Bezaire, Benoit" <bbezaire@ptc.com>, WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <RFBWWDhWNCUjQkc0KCpSLTE5NjYxOTI3MTg@foghorn>

Lofton,

 >  Benoit or Don (or anyone) --

 >  We have resolved this in concept -- yes, need to specify it.  I was 
 >  entering it into the DoC and stumbled with wording.  Would one of you 
 >  please send me some precise wording for [1]?

 >  Taking off from Ben & Don suggestions, I started like this:  "The viewer 
 >  shall fit the contents of the requested viewRect into >....what?....< and 
 >  center it, while maintaining the aspect ratio of the viewRect."

 >  It is the "....what?..." that I'm searching for.  Is it simply "viewer's 
 >  rectangle" as in the (below) quoted zoom wording?  Or something more 
 >  precise, like "view surface metafile display area"?  Or what?

I believe we should use "the viewer's rectangle" to be consistent with 
terminology
used in 3.2.4.3 where Move behavior is described.

Don.

 >  I seem to recall some discussion of this once, but can't find it now.  (We 
 >  were playing with words like viewport, viewWindow, etc, for what is now 
 >  viewRect?)

 >  Regards,
 >  -Lofton.

 >  [1]
 >  http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-DOM.html#setView


 >  At 09:31 AM 11/19/2008 -0600, Don wrote:

 >  >Benoit
 >  >
 >  >  >  I think some wording like the 'zoom' object behavior would  be 
 >  > sufficient:
 >  >  >
 >  >  >  zoom The viewer shall fit the target  rectangle of the 
 >  > selected  object(s)
 >  >  >  into the viewer's rectangle and center it.
 >  >
 >  >I think that would be adequate if we add "while maintaining the aspect 
 >  >ratio of..."
 >  >
 >  >  >
 >  >  >  Benoit
 >  >  >
 >  >  >
 >  >  >  From: Lofton Henderson  [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
 >  >  >  Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:20  PM
 >  >  >  To: Bezaire, Benoit; WebCGM WG
 >  >  >  Subject: RE: Question  about setView()
 >  >
 >  >  >
 >  >  >  At 11:51 AM 11/18/2008 -0500, Bezaire, Benoit wrote:
 >  >  >  Also, there is nothing in the wording explaining how to handle view
 >  >  >  rectangles which have a different aspect ratio than the viewer's 
 >  > viewport.
 >  >  >  Which will happen in 99% of the cases.
 >  >  >  Good point.   I raised this myself some time back, and it got lost
 >  before
 >  >  >  any  resolution.
 >  >
 >  >  >  There is some guidance in the stuff of section 3.4,  where we have 
 >  > <param>s
 >  >  >  that specify mapping, halign, valign of the picture  into the
 >  <object>'s
 >  >  >  rectangle.  I think something similar is  reasonable here.
 >  >  >  (Alternatively, if we don't want the mapping options, we  have to
 >  specify
 >  >  >  how it happens unambiguously.)
 >  >
 >  >  >  -Lofton.
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >  >  From: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org
 >  >  >  [mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of  Bezaire,
 >  Benoit
 >  >  >  Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:58  AM
 >  >  >  To: WebCGM WG
 >  >  >  Subject: Question about  setView()
 >  >
 >  >  >  I'm wondering if the wording  of setView() is not a bit short? The
 >  draft
 >  >  >  doesn't say anything about invalid  rectangles being passed in for
 >  >  >  example.
 >  >  >
 >  >  >  Should more feedback be sent to the user? Currently, the function
 >  >  >  prototype has a void return type. Should we change that to a boolean
 >  or
 >  >  >  something else? or throw an exception perhaps.
 >  >  >
 >  >  >  I also question the possibility of a major scale change, ex:  scaling
 >  
 >  > in by
 >  >  >  a factor of 100 (and loosing sight of the overall picture).  Should
 >  the
 >  >  >  user be told that such a change occurred?
 >  >  >
 >  >  >  Thoughts?
 >  >  >  Benoit.
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 20:02:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 4 December 2008 20:02:26 GMT