Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Did we miss something?

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Hi Benoit,

I went looking for some background and history on the "a la Duluc" 
scenario.  I couldn't find it in mail archives -- is there an email thread 
or a telecon/meeting minutes?

Any case, the requirements document [1] only indicates that the MUST 
requirements are for "associate XML data using the 'id' or 'name'".  One 
could conceivably read the documentation scenario into some of the other 
wording, but it is not directly flagged and supported.

[1] 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/14243/WebCGM_20_Requirements.html#XCF

It *is* addressed in the CS text of WebCGM 2.0 [2]:

[2] 
http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/WebCGM20-Concepts.html#webcgm-concepts-XCF

Quoting that text: "could be used as a partial inventory of a WebCGM 
illustration by enumerating the Application Structures IDs, types and 
(most) attributes. (Note that it is out-of-scope of this version of WebCGM 
XCF to fully mirror the hierarchical structure of a CGM graphic (see 
"Structure overview" in the XCF chapter.)"

I note the use of "partial inventory" and "most attributes".  To me, this 
means that we did not intend that the "documentation case" be fully 
supported (although the end of the quoted comment is mostly about hierarchy).

I do remember discussion about this sometime in the past (maybe Munich?), 
and I remember having to edit that section of text [2] to waffle-word the 
XCF support for inventory or documentation of the metafile contents.

Hopefully this helps -- while it doesn't definitively answer "did we 
miss?", it seems to point in the direction that this (full inventory or 
documentation) was not determined to be a MUST support usage scenario .

Regards,
-Lofton.


At 10:18 AM 4/4/2006 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>Hi guys,
>
>   I was looking into the XCF stuff lately... more precisely the "a la
>   Duluc" scenario... where a user may want a companion file not for
>   'apply' purpose, but mainly for documentation.
>
>   I'm assuming a user may want the companion file in the following
>   structure (for documentation purposes):
>
>   <grobject id="obj1" screentip="a tip"/>
>   <para id="obj2" screentip="another tip"/>
>
>   I'm assuming that for the documentation case, that it doesn't make
>   much sense to use the <bindByName> and <bindById> tags as is caries
>   less information (you lose the aps type).
>
>   So, assuming my assumptions are correct; where's the 'name'
>   attribute in the DTD?
>
>   It seems like I'm not allowed to do:
>   <grobject id="obj1" name="drawing"/>
>
>   Did we miss something?
>
>--
>  Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com
>
>This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected
>by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware
>that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or
>any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
>error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and
>delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.