- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:40:39 -0700
- To: "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
At 03:24 PM 12/12/2008 -0500, Bezaire, Benoit wrote: >Although I like (want) what Stuart describes, it's not that trivial to >put into words. Yes, it can get subtle. >How about? >boolean: TRUE if new view was set; FALSE if rectangle was invalid and >the view could not be set. I'll use that for now. Thanks. In the DoC, I will now mark this (2nd) part of the setView issue "resolved by the WG". (So speak up now if you're not happy with it!) Thanks, -Lofton. >-----Original Message----- >From: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org >[mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lofton Henderson >Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:41 AM >To: WebCGM WG >Subject: RE: re[2]: invalid/extreme rectangles in setView() > > >Benoit, Stuart -- > >At 08:23 AM 12/12/2008 -0800, Galt, Stuart A wrote: > > >My sense of what was said in the telecon was slightly different > > > >TRUE gets returned if the viewer changed the view and FALSE gets > >returned if the viewer did not set the view. In theory the viewer > >could return FALSE even though you passed it a valid rectangle but it > >was feeling ornery that day and didn't want to change the view... > >That sounds familiar. But unfortunately I didn't record the precise >definition. Since you are the keeper of the Minutes, I guess we should >go with your recollection. > >Benoit? > >-Lofton. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] > > > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 8:04 AM > > > To: WebCGM WG > > > Subject: RE: re[2]: invalid/extreme rectangles in setView() > > > > > > > > > In the telecon and email, we agreed with Benoit's proposal for > > > Option 1; his proposed wording on this part of the > > > setView() issue was: > > > > > > "i) boolean: TRUE if new view was set; FALSE if rectangle was > > > invalid." > > > > > > Is that the wording that we should use? (Benoit, as the proposer, > > > is this the wording thatyou want?) > > > > > > [We had some discussion in the telecon about it: some sense the > > > TRUE and FALSE do not apply to the same condition/test.] > > > > > > Per the telecon, I am putting the above into the DoC unless there is > > > > some quick substitute wording. (It may be reopened later, in the > > > next cycle.) > > > > > > -Lofton. > > > > > > At 03:57 PM 12/4/2008 -0500, Bezaire, Benoit wrote: > > > > > > >Let's try an make is easy for script writers, ok? Else these new > > > >DOM calls will never get used. > > > > > > > >Two opposite corner points just complicates the code for script > > > >writers, they have to add 'checks' to determine which point > > > is which. I > > > >didn't oppose the decision for viewcontext back in WebCGM 2.0 since > > > > >script writers were unlikely to change the viewcontext. I think > > > >it's different for WebCGMRect() though. > > > > > > > >Benoit. > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >From: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org > > > >[mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Don > > > >Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 3:30 PM > > > >To: Lofton Henderson; WebCGM WG > > > >Subject: re[2]: invalid/extreme rectangles in setView() > > > > > > > > > > > >Lofton, > > > > > > > > > At 01:12 PM 12/4/2008 -0600, Don wrote: > > > > > > > > > >Lofton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > All -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a dangling open piece of Benoit's > > > setView() questions. > > > >We closed > > > the other piece (about different aspect > > > ratios). I > > > >can't find any thread > > > discussion about this piece, after > > > >Benoit's message below (top), and > > > it apparently > > > remains open. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Discussion? > > > > > > > > > > > >I believe we should have very basic checking for Invalid > > > >rectangle and > >return boolean as Benoit suggested. A minimal > > > >invalidity check would be > >if ymax < ymin or xmax < ymin. > > > > > > > > > Side question: I just looked at WebCGMRect. Does > > > anyone recall > > > >why we > parameterized it in terms of "lower left corner" > > > and "upper > > > >right > > > > > corner"? Why not just "two diagonally opposite corner points > > > > > P1 and > > > >P2 > [(x1,y1) and (x2,y2)]"? > > > > > > > >I not sure why but I think it would be nice to be consistent with > > > >viewcontext where we define viewcontext as "defining two > > > corner points > > > >of a rectangle". > > > > > > > >http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-IC.ht > >ml#webcgm_ > > > >3 > > > >_2_2_2 > > > > > > > > > For the former, it sets up an error condition (or is > > > "error prone"). > > > >Do we > need that error condition? For the latter, the only > > > >error condition is a > degenerate rectangle, i.e., zero area, > > > >i.e., xmin=xmax and/or ymin=ymax. > > > > > > > >I don't think we need any error checking at all on WebCGMRect. A > > > >programmer may want to set a WebCGMRect = 0,0,0,0 for > > > example as some > > > >kind of indication. > > > > > > > >Don. > > > > > There may be a reason we did it this way (more error prone, or > > > > >allows > setting an error), but I don't recall it. I do > > > recall the > > > >stuff about > getObjExt() on an APS with no primitives, but we > > > >now return 'null' for > that, so we don't need the somewhat hokey > > > > >mirrored rectangle. > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-DOM.h > >tml#webcgm > > > >r > > > >ect > > > > > > > > > -Lofton. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lofton. > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 09:44 AM 11/19/2008 -0500, Bezaire, Benoit wrote: > > > > > > > I remember this thread. I don't want to reopen old >issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, for this particular API, a script writer > > > can easily > > > >loose the > > > display (zooming on a very small rectangle or > > > >zooming our far enough that > > > nothing is displayed). I > > > >think the API should at least return a more > > > meaningful >value. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some options: > > > > > > > i) boolean: TRUE if new view was set; FALSE is > > > rectangle was > > > >invalid. > > > > > > > ii) float: returns the scale factor between the > > > old view and > > > >the new view. > > > > > > > > 0 is successful, failed otherwise. > > > > > > > iii) WebCGMRect: a rectangle defining the old view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of those would help the script writer understand > > > >what went wrong, > > > instead of getting in touch with > > > technical support. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Benoit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Lofton Henderson > > > [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] > > > > > > >Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:08 PM > > > To: > > > Bezaire, Benoit; > > > >WebCGM WG > > > Subject: Re: Question about setView() > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > At 08:57 AM 11/18/2008 -0500, Bezaire, Benoit wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > Dieter raised and we discussed a similar question a few > > > >months back. > > > >As a > > > > > > > general rule, CGM and WebCGM say what happens with valid > > > > >input but have > > > been relatively silent about error > > > fallbacks, > > > >viewer error reactions, etc. > > > > > > > What we have done most recently is say something like > > > >"...has no effect". > > > > > > > We generally have not gone to more extensive > > > error reactions. > > > >See for > > > example the 'grnode' stuff that we added to the > > > >interfaces. > > > > > > > > > > > > > My view is that, if we start opening the door to > > > saying what > > > >viewers do > > > for this and that bad input, where do we stop? > > > >Should we go back and > > > define mandatory error responses > > > >for all bad input? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that the profile (Ch.6) *does* talk a lot about > > > >"degeneracies". > > > >It > > > > > > > says what is the graphical effect of a degenerate > > > primitive, > > > >etc., and > > > this is what is *suggested* in CGM:1999 > > > itself -- > > > >WebCGM just makes > it > > > normative. (But saysnothing > > > >more about what the viewer should do > when > > > > > > >encountering degeneracies. Silent? Warning? Task-bar >"abnormality" > > > > > > > icon?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess I favor "...invalid input has no effect, neither > > > > >graphical nor to > > > the DOM tree." Then leave it to the > > > >implementor, what else the viewer > > > might do in the way of > > > >error response to the user. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > I guess I view this as another choice for implementors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could also live with putting some valid limits on it. > > > >"Valid rectangles > > > shall not change the scale by more than > > > > >...blah..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lofton. > > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 12 December 2008 21:41:33 UTC