[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: In what components is 'transform' defined?
Stuart, again, inline... -----Original Message----- From: Galt, Stuart A [mailto:stuart.a.galt@boeing.com] Sent: Freitag, 18. Januar 2008 19:30 To: Weidenbrueck, Dieter; Cruikshank, David W; Lofton Henderson; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: In what components is 'transform' defined? My responses are below. -- Stuart Galt SGML Resource Group stuart.a.galt@boeing.com (206) 544-3656 > -----Original Message----- > From: Weidenbrueck, Dieter [mailto:dweidenbrueck@ptc.com] > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 9:43 AM > To: Galt, Stuart A; Cruikshank, David W; Lofton Henderson; > cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: In what components is 'transform' > defined? > > Stuart, > > interesting idea about segments, however, that would require to turn > every addressable object into a segment. So there is a significant > overhead just for the purpose of somebody eventually applying a > transform. Would it be possible to only create a segement at the application structure level if it is actually used in the metafile or called out in the xcf? I was just trying to see if we could use or extend existing constructs. I agree turning every APS into a virtual segment would cause too much overhead. DW: So you are talking about a CGM containing regular grobjects only that should be considered as segments at runtime? > > It would also mean that transforms could not be applied to WebCGM 1.0 > or 2.0 (and hence ATA and S1000D) files, which is not really > acceptable. I am not sure how we could do something in 2.1 that would suddenly make transforms possible with 1.0/2.0 data. Or were you suggesting that I could take a 2.1 XCF file and a older CGM file and have it work with a 2.1 viewer? DW: sure, this is straightforward. Since the style properties/transform attributes are applied using DOM or XCF they will work as well as setting a different lineweight or adding a namespaced attribute to a WebCGM 1.0 file. > The math is clear, and we already know that we need 3x3 matrices (to > be able to include shearing). That should make our discussion an easy > one, I guess. This is what SVG does, this is what PostScript does. Yes the 3x3 matrix is what is needed and is used by most things that do a 2D to 2D coordinate transfomation. Only six terms in the matrix need to be specified because the bottom row is not really needed to produce the new 2D coordinate.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]