re[2]: More on getObjectExtent()

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 15:05:39 UTC