RE: Question about setView()

I think some wording like the 'zoom' object behavior would be
sufficient:
 
zoom
The viewer shall fit the target rectangle
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-IC.html#target-
rectangle>  of the selected object(s)
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-IC.html#webcgm_
3_1_2_3>  into the viewer's rectangle and center it.
 
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.