Re: re[2]: More on getObjectExtent()

I agree that getObjExt does NOT include viewcontext.

Dave

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>wrote:

>
> At 11:42 AM 11/19/2008 -0500, Bezaire, Benoit wrote:
>
>  We heard back from Dieter and Don. It would be good to find out if
>> others agree with them.
>>
>
> I have put it on tomorrow's agenda.
>
>
>  Assuming they do agree, this thread is a non-issue.
>>
>
> My own opinion.  I can't remember all the details.  But Dieter's summary
> sounds right.  And it's okay with me as the answer -- I see no compelling
> reason to change it.  What I do remember from the previous discussion was
> this...
>
> Question:  as it now stands, getObjExt does not include 'viewcontext',
> right?  If you want a rectangle that includes the 'viewcontext', it is
> possible to inquire the 'viewcontext' (getApsAttr) and union it with the
> getObjExt result.  Correct?  So the current setup gives the option to
> inquire the bounding box of the graphical locus independently of the
> 'viewcontext', whereas that would not be possible if 'viewcontext' were
> included?
>
> -Lofton.
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lofton Henderson
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 11:38 AM
>> To: WebCGM WG
>> Subject: re[2]: More on getObjectExtent()
>>
>>
>> Benoit (et al) --
>>
>> As I'm understanding this thread, there is no need to create and resolve
>> an issue here.  I.e., your question about our (historical) intent was
>> answered by Dieter and confirmed by Don, and that seems to be the end of
>> it.  Is that accurate?
>>
>> On the other hand, if you wants to challenge that as a wrong decision,
>> there is an issue to be generated.  Or if he wants clarifying language
>> ...ditto...  (In the latter case, could you please propose a place and
>> approximate language?)
>>
>> By the way, Benoit -- thanks for all of the spec feedback that you're
>> generating!
>>
>> -Lofton.
>>
>> At 08:58 AM 11/19/2008 -0600, Don wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>
>
>