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

Hi Benoit,

Shall we consider this thread closed?  Or do you think it ought to be 
preserved in the more formal LC comment disposition process (in the DoC 
document)?

(More pertinent question perhaps: is the specification missing something in 
the way of clarification, that you think it ought to have?)

Cheers,
-Lofton.

At 09:34 AM 11/20/2008 -0800, David Cruikshank wrote:
>I agree that getObjExt does NOT include viewcontext.
>
>Dave
>
>On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Lofton Henderson 
><<mailto:lofton@rockynet.com>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: 
>>><mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org>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: 
>>> <mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org>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: 
>>> <mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org>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.
>>