re[2]: More on getObjectExtent()

Benoit (et al) --

As I'm understanding this thread, there is no need to create and resolve an 
issue here.  I.e., your question about our (historical) intent was answered 
by Dieter and confirmed by Don, and that seems to be the end of it.  Is 
that accurate?

On the other hand, if you wants to challenge that as a wrong decision, 
there is an issue to be generated.  Or if he wants clarifying language 
...ditto...  (In the latter case, could you please propose a place and 
approximate language?)

By the way, Benoit -- thanks for all of the spec feedback that you're 
generating!

-Lofton.

At 08:58 AM 11/19/2008 -0600, Don wrote:

>Benoit,
>
>I am good with Dieter's recollections. They are consistant with
>what I recall also.
>
>Don.
>
>  >  If users are aware of that, I'm fine with  it.
>  >
>  >  Benoit.
>  >
>  >  From: Weidenbrueck, Dieter
>  >  Sent:  Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:02 PM
>  >  To: Bezaire, Benoit; WebCGM  WG
>  >  Subject: RE: More on getObjectExtent()
>  >
>  >
>  >  Benoit,
>  >
>  >  please see inline (as far as my recollection  goes)
>  >
>  >  Regards,
>  >  Dieter
>  >
>  >  From: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org
>  >  [mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bezaire,  Benoit
>  >  Sent: Dienstag, 18. November 2008 20:40
>  >  To: WebCGM  WG
>  >  Subject: RE: More on getObjectExtent()
>
>  >
>  >
>  >  One more question. I think we already talked about this and  came to a
>  >  conclusion, but I wonder if the right decision was  taken.
>  >
>  >  Does getObjectExtent() include the 'viewcontext'  APS attribute in its
>  >  calculation?
>  >  DW: No, it should contain  the extent of the geometry only.
>  >
>  >  I think we talked about this a while back and said  'no'. Again, the
>  >  current wording doesn't mention 'viewcontext' so I have to  assume it's
>  >  not included.
>  >  DW: I agree.
>  >
>  >  However, say I have the following scenario in  test.cgm:
>  >
>  >  test.cgm contains an APS called 'myTarget' with a  'viewcontext' larger
>  >  than its graphical primitives.
>  >  I can navigate directly to 'myTarget' with  test.cgm#myTarget and I 
> should
>  >  _zoom_ to the 'viewcontext' rectangle
>  >  DW: the correct   behavior would be zoom + highlight to the viewcontext
>  >  rect
>  >  I can also use myPicture.setView(
>  >  myPicture.getAppStructureById("myTarget").getObjectExtent() );
>  >  The second case would generate a different result  compared to the first,
>  >  is that what we want?
>  >  DW: correct
>  >
>  >  Benoit.
>  >
>  >  From: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org
>  >  [mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bezaire,  Benoit
>  >  Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:53 PM
>  >  To: WebCGM  WG
>  >  Subject: More on getObjectExtent()
>
>  >
>  >
>  >  The wording says  "[...] The bounding box calculation is based on the
>  >  abstract locus of the  primitives within the APS."
>  >  What does 'abstract  locus' mean?
>  >
>  >  I'd like to know if  getObjectExtent() returns a tight bounding box on a
>  >  given APS. i.e., given a  polybezier, are control points part of the
>  >  bounding box calculations or  not?
>  >
>  >  Benoit.

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 16:39:13 UTC