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

RE: CGZ files

From: Bezaire, Benoit <bbezaire@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:23:23 -0400
Message-ID: <B0D4682CF6F84041AC7C42AA6E9E81330BF44D4F@HQ-MAIL3.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

I see your point, however...

We have customers using WebCGM 1.0 "compliant" tools (IsoDraw/IsoView v6
for example). Now, these customers could get a WebCGM 1.0 .cgz and those
"compliant" applications would reject them. That's not very
user-friendly.

Maybe it's better to do this as a WebCGM 2.1 feature.

Benoit. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Don L. [mailto:dlarson@cgmlarson.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 6:59 PM
To: Bezaire, Benoit
Cc: WebCGM WG
Subject: re: CGZ files

Benoit

>  Hi  All,
>  
>  I find the draft  underspecified about compressed CGM files. More  
> specifically, we would like to  know what kind of CGM files may be  
> compressed?
>  
>  Version1 to  4? 
>  Can I compress a  WebCGM 1.0 CGM file for example? 
>  
>  Is this a WebCGM 2.1  conformance feature for viewer and authoring
tools?
>  Or is this a new WebCGM  2.1 (and only 2.1) 'encoding scheme' ... for

> lack  of a better  word?

I think 'encoding scheme' is a better characterization. The text for
this feature in the webcgm 2.1 spec was extracted from the SVG spec.

My thinking is that this is a viewer conformance issue and a WebCGM 2.1
viewer should be able to open a file with a .cgz extension and know that
it needa to decode this file according to the gzip spec. with the
assumption that results will be a file that conforms to the WebCGM
profile (any version e.g. 
1.0 , 2.x).   

Don.

>  Thanks. 
>  Benoit.
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 15:24:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 October 2008 15:24:02 GMT