RE: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION. "direct child" or "descendant"?

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

I looked again, and am not entirely happy with option 3.  I think I
understand what we're getting at.  I'll propose closure of this
question, with the below new wording for the bits of 3.2.1.5. 

Old (1st CD) wording:

[[[

Viewer Behavior. Unlike other application structures, 'grnode' is not interactive. It does not receive mouse events like

other application structures. The content of a 'grnode' can however be interactive if that content is a direct child of a

'grobject', 'para' or 'subpara'. Additionally, if a mouse event is triggered on the geometry of a 'grnode', an ancestor node

may respond to the event if that ancestor node is of type 'grobject', 'para' and 'subpara'. See the Event interface for

more information regarding mouse events.

]]]

Proposed new wording:

[[[

Viewer Behavior. Unlike other application structures, 'grnode' is not interactive; i.e., it does not receive mouse events.  If a mouse event is triggered on the geometry of a 'grnode', an ancestor node of type 'grobject', 'para' or 'subpara' instead may respond to the event. Therefore, the content of a 'grnode' could effectively appear to be interactive, for example, if the 'grnode' were a sole direct child of a 'grobject', 'para' or 'subpara'.  See the Event interface for more information regarding mouse events.

]]]

Okay?  

-Lofton.

At 07:22 AM 8/24/2005 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> At 10:37 AM 8/24/2005 +0200,
> Dieter  Weidenbrück wrote:
> > option 3
>
> That's the way I was leaning.  But I have thought some more since
> yesterday...
>
> One oddity of Option 3:  clicking gn1 would cause the selection of
> go1 in both the direct-child and descendant examples.  But in the
> descendant example, clicking gn2 would also cause selection of go1, and
> gn0 would also cause selection of go1, and indeed if there were graphics
> inside go1 but outside of gn0, those would also cause selection of
> go1.  So if we go with "descendant", then yes, the content
> of gn1 is interactive, but it is not apparently synonymous with a single
> interactive object ... it is just a piece in a bigger interactive object
> / context.
>
> Whereas if we go with "direct child", then gn1 looks like an
> interactive object -- clicking within gn1 selects go1, and clicking
> anywhere outside of gn1 does NOT select go1.
>
> So what are we really trying to express in that 3.2.1.5 
> wording?
>
> -Lofton.
>
>
> > > -----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.
> > >
> > >
> > >