[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE closed: what is the root node
I agree. > -----Original Message----- > From: Benoit Bezaire [mailto:benoit@itedo.com] > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 9:17 AM > To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE closed: what is the root node > > > Hi, > > There's been discussions on what the root node should be; the Picture > or the Metafile. We need a root node for two things: the inheritance > model, and the XCF. > > In this email I'm making a proposal for the WebCGMPicture to be the > root node. Here's why: > > i) To me, the WebCGMMetafile is a simple placeholder for generic > information about the file such as VDC extent, metafile version, > profile edition, VDC type etc... and this, in my opinion, doesn't > need to be a WebCGMNode. > > ii) I think the inheritance 'root' and the XCF 'root' should be the > same; and for this reason, I think WebCGMPicture is a better choice > (please see below). > > iii) Most of our style properties either apply to single APS' or the > entire Picture, we've never discussion Metafile-wide style > attributes. > > iv) WebCGM doesn't support multiple pictures per file, but some > other profiles do; and if they 'extend' our model, I think it's best > if the root is the Picture, here's why: > > - a DOM implementation supporting multiple pictures would likely > iterate between pictures via: > > var meta = objectId.getWebCGMMetafile(); > var pic = meta.firstPicture; > while( pic.nextSibling ) > { > ... > pic = pic.nextSibling; > } > > - this would allow each picture to be styled differently or in the > same way (depending on the use case). > > - it would also allow to call applyCompanionFile per Picture (just > replace the '...' above with the call. Again, a different XCF for > each Picture could be applied, or the same to all pictures (the > user has the option). > > v) Having the WebCGMPicture as the root element makes our profile > easier to extend for other profiles, and I think that's what we > want. > > vi) I understand that it seems natural to have WebCGMMetafile derive > from WebCGMNode (I for one, agree), but I think we're blocking > extensibility of the profile if we do that. > > Unless there are objections, I'm in favor of WebCGMPicture being the > root element, okay? > > -- > Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]