[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: is apsid an attribute?
Hi Lofton, See inline... Thursday, July 7, 2005, 9:20:30 PM, Lofton wrote: LH> Source: editors / test writers. LH> ISSUE: does the apsid parameter of the BegAps element show up as an LH> attribute in the DOM? LH> DESCRIPTION: LH> WebCGMNode contains a boolean method, hasAttributes(), and an attribute of LH> type node-list, 'attributes'. What qualifies as an attribute is not LH> defined anywhere. Right and we should probably correct that. LH> The obvious thing that comes to mind is APS Attributes LH> (on APS nodes). The text says the value of 'attributes' will be null in LH> the case that the WebCGMNode has no attributes. LH> WebCGMAppStructure, which inherits from WebCGMNode, has an additional LH> attribute, 'apsId'. Right, just like the DOM/SVG element interface has an 'id' attribute. It's a convenience method that is frequently used by script writers. LH> In metafiles, the apsid is a parameter on the BegAps LH> element (along with the 'type' and the 'inheritance flag' parameters). Yes, the DOM and CGM meaning of apsid are not exactly the same. LH> The initial code of the test Node-attr.html shows that the apsid is being LH> treated in the test as if it is an 'attribute'. I did the test and that's how our implementation currently works. LH> So should DOM return the metafile apsid as an 'attribute' (WebCGMNode LH> interface), or only as the 'apsId' on the WebCGMAppStructure interface, or LH> both? I went for both, it would be good if people could share their thoughts on this. I thought we agreed on that, but it probably wasn't a minuted. LH> It seems to me that the way we designed the interfaces and their LH> methods/attributes seems to hint at "only 'apsId'". On the other hand, LH> Benoit seems to remember some past decision for 'attribute' or "both". If LH> that is the case, note that hasAttributes() will always return true for an LH> APS node (by far its most usual usage, if not the only usage), and LH> 'attributes' will always have a count of at least 1. Also note that in LH> XCF, apsid is a required XML attribute on all the APS elements (and the LH> bindById, of course). LH> It is not really critical *how* we answer it. We have some freedom in how LH> we map the structured metafile instance onto an XML-like DOM tree. But it LH> is critical that we have a clear answer and document it. Yes. I don't have a really strong opinion about this... but in XML, 'id' is an attribute; and we have apsid required on all XCF elements (except for bindByName). We have ask ourselves if we want a DOM that script writers will easily understand or if we want a DOM that is very closely linked to the CGM format (which only this group understands). LH> ALTERNATIVES: LH> Alt.1: 'apsId' only LH> Alt.2: 'attribute' only (which would mean eliminate 'apsId') LH> Alt.3: both LH> RECOMMENDATION: none yet, TC should discuss. Implementors, what have you LH> done? I don't have a strong opinion, I'll vote for Alt 3 mostly because I don't feel like changing my code; but also because it is harmless. LH> Regards, LH> -Lofton. -- Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]