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

Response to WebCGM 2.1 Last Call comment: setView() [2of2]

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:25:23 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20081218105400.01654d80@localhost>
To: bbezaire@ptc.com
Cc: public-webcgm@w3.org

Dear Benoit,

The WebCGM Working Group has reviewed the comment you sent [1] about the 
WebCGM 2.1 Last Call Working Draft [2] published on 18 November 
2008.  Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and send 
us comments.

The Working Group's response resolution to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and acknowledge this WebCGM WG response by 
replying to this mail and copying the WebCGM public mailing list 
<public-webcgm@w3.org>. Let us know if you agree with it or not before 11 
Jan 2009.  If we receive no reply from you by January 11, then we will 
default your reply to "WebCGM WG response accepted."

In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution 
for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group.

If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity 
to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director 
during the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C 
Recommendation Track.

Best regards,

On behalf of the WebCGM Working Group, a
Lofton Henderson, WebCGM WG Chair.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0024.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/
_____________________________________________________________
* Comment Sent: Tues, 18 Nov 2008
* Archived:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0024.html

The WebCGM WG has the following responses to your comment:
----------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY of your comment:

>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?

RESPONSE to your comment:

>In the IDL, change the setView return type to from 'void' to 'boolean'; in 
>the setView() description, change the return value from "No return value." 
>to " boolean: TRUE if new view was set; FALSE if rectangle was invalid and 
>the view could not be set." In the ECMAScript in Chapter 8: change 
>"setView(view)" to "setView(viewRect); change the associated "This method 
>has no return value" to "This method returns a Boolean".

--------------------------- end -------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2008 18:26:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:37:35 GMT