[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION. "direct child" or "descendant"?
Hi Lofton, I'm also fine with option 3. -- Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 4:37:24 AM, Dieter wrote: DW> option 3 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:45 AM >> To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION. "direct child" or "descendant"? >> >> >> 3.2.1.5. Grnode >> ---------- >> "...'grnode' is not interactive; i.e., it does not receive >> mouse events. >> The content of a 'grnode' can however be interactive if it >> [the grnode] is a direct child of a 'grobject', 'para' or 'subpara'". >> >> Do we really mean "direct child"? 5.7.10 says, "An >> application structure of type 'grnode' or 'layer' cannot be a >> target of a mouse event. Instead, if the mouse pointer was >> over a 'grnode' when the event occurred; its closest ancestor >> object of type 'grobject', 'para' or 'subpara' will be >> designated as the target element." >> >> I guess the wording of 3.2.1.5 was chosen that way so that >> the containing 'grobject' would tightly contain the 'grnode', >> like this >> >> grnobject go1 >> grnode gn1 >> [...] >> /grnode >> /grobject >> >> and look effectively to be the same object as the containing >> 'grobject'. As opposed to gn1 in something like this: >> >> grobject go1 >> grnode gn0 >> [...] >> grnode gn1 >> [...] >> /grnode >> grnode gn2 >> [...] >> /grnode >> /grnode >> /grobject >> >> Opt.1: leave it as is. >> Opt.2: change to something like, "...can effectively appear >> to be interactive if it is a direct child of ..." >> Opt.3: change to something like, "...can effectively appear >> to be interactive if it is a descendant of ..." >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -Lofton.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]