RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Review of WebCGM 2.0 Profile

I spun off the Transparency question as a separate item.  About the
rest...

RECOMMENDATION.  Resolve all the rest (purely editorial) as
suggested by Dave's Ok's and our combined clarifications below (including
"remove 6.16", which simply observed the obsolescence of 1.0
Symbol Libraries in 2.0).

Please comment if you disagree with any of the recommendations.

At 01:01 AM 10/11/2005 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote:

[...]

T20.24  Hatch Index 
should this be changed to Same as model profile:
No with a reference to 6.19 like we
do for Line Type?

Unsure.  Unlike Line Type, it is WebCGM Hatch Index is technically
identical to MP.  So that argues for "Yes" (same as
MP).  

Recommendation:  Leave it "Yes" (same as MP), and put an
informative "Note.  See 6.19 for further discussion of hatch
interiors in WebCGM."

 

Ok..... 

T20.27  Edge Type  should
this be changed to Same as model profile:
No with a reference to 6.18 like we
do for Line Type?

Unsure.  Is it supposed to match?  Do the registered types make
sense for edges?  Some obviously don't, like "break"
style, single arrow, double dot.  I suspect that this is
intentional, because some of the registered line type values are nonsense
as edge types.

Recommendation:  Leave it "Yes" (same as MP), and put an
informative "Note.  See 6.18 for further discussion of line and
edge type definitions in
WebCGM." 

 

Ok... 

T22.2  Application Data 
it s interesting that the model profile says The use of this element
shall not be restricted. and we prohibit it?

Yes, interesting.  That statement was not in the MP of CGM:1992
Amd.2 (the original normative PPF, to which WebCGM 1.0 was
written).  It somehow got added when the PPF (and rules for
profiles) were rolled into the CGM:1999 republication.  I don't know
what it means.  And I can't find an erratum which indicates that the
change should have been made (to CGM:1999 PPF).

I suggest we ignore it.  Alternately, we could put a note indicating
the above, or that the specification in the CGM:1999 PPF is suspected to
be an error.

 OK.,, 

T25.4  Font substitution 
font metrics and glyph metrics in WebCGM column should probably be
aligned with model profile as Rob noted.

I don't understand this one.  You mean to change "Annex I"
to "Annex I.2" or "clause I.2"?  (Btw, I believe
"Annex I.2" is the proper ISO style.)

 

Yes, change Annex I to Annex
I.2. 

T26.6  Font substitution 
Align WebCGM column as noted by Rob for references to Font
metrics

Ditto.  Do you mean to change "I" to 
"I.2"?

 

Yes, change Annex I to Annex
I.2. 

6.16  Symbol Library 
should we remove this section entirely since Symbol Library is now
obsolete?  This would require renumbering and also require
adjustments to links in Line Type, Hatch Index, and Edge
Type.

Yes it would.  I don't feel strongly.  Is it better to leave it
and indicate that it is 1.0, removed (obsoleted) in 2.0?

 

I would remove it...We
deprecated in Release 2 and made it obsolete in 2.0.  To me that
implies removal.

Regards,

-Lofton.