[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: is apsid an attribute?
Dieter makes a good point... From a DOM perspective, why should 'name' be an attribute but not the APS id? -- Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com Friday, July 8, 2005, 10:35:45 AM, Dieter wrote: DW> Lofton, DW> see below >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] >> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 4:29 PM >> To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: is apsid an attribute? >> >> >> Expressing my own (mild) preference... >> >> I guess I'd prefer that apsid is *not* included in the >> 'attributes' of the >> WebCGMNode interface of DOM. Reasons: >> >> -- myAps.apsId already gives quick and immediate access to the >> apsid. ('apsId' is the attribute on the WebCGMAppStructure interface). >> >> -- if we take the interpretation that apsid is *not* one of the >> attributes, >> myAps.hasAttributes() would return false unless there are **APS >> Attributes** (in the metafile sense) in the given target APS. >> Otherwise it >> would always return true, and you would have to look at >> myAps.attributes.count to see if there are any APS Attributes -- >> if we were >> to take the interpretation that apsid is one of the 'attributes', then >> count is always at least 1, and you'd have to check for >1 to >> determine if >> there are any APS Attributes. >> >> I'm having trouble thinking of any *strong* arguments one way or the >> other. Does anyone see any strong arguments for having apsid be >> one of the >> 'attributes' of the WebCGMNode interface? DW> Common sense among script writers, I guess. DW> There is no other case that I am aware of where there is an ID on an DW> element, and it is not an attribute. DW> If we treat it as an attribute, everybody will understand easily, and DW> will be able to work with it without further explanation. DW> Otherwise (if we don't make it an attribute), we have the following DW> situation: DW> In the XCF, apsID is clearly an attribute,however, in the DOM, it is DW> not an attribute, is is something different. This leads to the situation DW> that binding between XCF and CGM file happens between an XML attribute DW> on the one side and a non-attribute on the CGM side. DW> And then we start explaining that apsID is an attribute, but it is not DW> really an attribute, it is just a parameter to the Begin APS element... DW> In addition, "apsName" (sp?) IS an attribute, so there we bind from DW> an XML attribute to a CGM attribute. DW> All in all, quite confusing. Hardly understandable if you don't know DW> CGM inside out. DW> Cheers, DW> Dieter >> >> Cheers, >> -Lofton. >> >> At 07:20 PM 7/7/2005 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: >> >Source: editors / test writers. >> > >> >ISSUE: does the apsid parameter of the BegAps element show up as an >> >attribute in the DOM? >> > >> >DESCRIPTION: >> > >> >WebCGMNode contains a boolean method, hasAttributes(), and an >> attribute of >> >type node-list, 'attributes'. What qualifies as an attribute is not >> >defined anywhere. The obvious thing that comes to mind is APS >> Attributes >> >(on APS nodes). The text says the value of 'attributes' will be null in >> >the case that the WebCGMNode has no attributes. >> > >> >WebCGMAppStructure, which inherits from WebCGMNode, has an additional >> >attribute, 'apsId'. In metafiles, the apsid is a parameter on >> the BegAps >> >element (along with the 'type' and the 'inheritance flag' parameters). >> > >> >The initial code of the test Node-attr.html shows that the apsid >> is being >> >treated in the test as if it is an 'attribute'. >> > >> >So should DOM return the metafile apsid as an 'attribute' (WebCGMNode >> >interface), or only as the 'apsId' on the WebCGMAppStructure >> interface, or >> >both? >> > >> >It seems to me that the way we designed the interfaces and their >> >methods/attributes seems to hint at "only 'apsId'". On the other hand, >> >Benoit seems to remember some past decision for 'attribute' or >> "both". If >> >that is the case, note that hasAttributes() will always return >> true for an >> >APS node (by far its most usual usage, if not the only usage), and >> >'attributes' will always have a count of at least 1. Also note that in >> >XCF, apsid is a required XML attribute on all the APS elements (and the >> >bindById, of course). >> > >> >It is not really critical *how* we answer it. We have some >> freedom in how >> >we map the structured metafile instance onto an XML-like DOM >> tree. But it >> >is critical that we have a clear answer and document it. >> > >> >ALTERNATIVES: >> >Alt.1: 'apsId' only >> >Alt.2: 'attribute' only (which would mean eliminate 'apsId') >> >Alt.3: both >> > >> >RECOMMENDATION: none yet, TC should discuss. Implementors, >> what have you >> >done? >> > >> >Regards, >> >-Lofton.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]