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

Yes, lets consider it close.

________________________________

From: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lofton Henderson
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 1:40 PM
To: WebCGM WG
Subject: 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
<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.