Update on FPDAM Part 4 GB-0007

[Caroline Arms]

Shawn,

These look OK to me, but may need to be linked more clearly to the 3 change numbers, for Rex's benefit.

     Caroline

Caroline Arms
Library of Congress Contractor
Co-compiler of Sustainability of Digital Formats resource
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/

** Views expressed are personal and not necessarily those of the institution **
>>> Shawn Villaron <shawnv at microsoft.com> 01/21/10 6:58 PM >>>
Attached are the changes for 202, 211 and 248.

From: Shawn Villaron
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:50 PM
To: 'SC 34 WG4'
Subject: RE: Update on FPDAM Part 4 GB-0007

Here's an update on this.  I'm going to make a slightly different recommendation.

We're going to leave the element names the same ( e.g., "cx," "cy" ), but we need to change their descriptions [ e.g., "(Extent Width)" ] as in some cases they're flat out wrong.  Additionally, having made some of the changes ( length along {x,y}-axis ), it reads funny, so I think we should stick with width and height, but use them consistently.

I'm going to change 202, 211 and 248 this evening and will provide the changed text.  If anyone objects to this updated approach, please let me know.

Thanks,

shawn

From: Shawn Villaron
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:23 PM
To: SC 34 WG4
Subject: Update on FPDAM Part 4 GB-0007

Good afternoon,

As I'm going through the instances where we use "extent," "length," "height," "width," etc., I'm finding a few oddities in the prose that will require a little more time to investigate or at least guidance from WG4.

For example, GB-0007 specifically calls out change 248.  When I reviewed the text for this change, I noticed that that we've switched "height" and "width" in the prose for the cx ( "count of x" ) example.  It appears that we've made a similar mistake in the prose for the cy example, too.  Clearly these are simple editorial changes we should make.

Stepping back, I believe that the ideal wording would be to refer to "extents" as "lengths along the {x,y}-axis" as opposed to heights, widths and lengths.

That said, I don't believe these minor changes impact interoperability or an implementers ability to implement the standard.  I find that readers reasonably skilled in graphics ( the scope of this issue ) understand that within the scope of extents, cx is always the count along the x-axis and cy is always the count along the y-axis.  The notions of height, width and length are more for the unskilled reader.

If WG4 believes we need to change the text, I'd suggest that we limit the changes to the prose and not change the names of the elements [ e.g., don't change "cy (Extent Width)" to "cy ( Extent Length along the y-axis )" ].

Let's get guidance during today's teleconference.

Thanks,

shawn