cgmo-webcgm message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: grnode
- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- To: "Bezaire, Benoit" <bbezaire@ptc.com>,<cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:02:13 -0600
At 12:19 PM 3/10/2008 -0400, Bezaire, Benoit wrote:
If
'grnode' elements are not
accessible via DOM calls. Why does WebCGMNode.nodeName lists 'grnode' as
a possible value?
Mistake in the document (erratum)? They happen.
IMO, it is unambiguous that we intended 'grnode' to be *almost* DOM
invisible -- it is specified invalid in almost all DOM access. Did
we intend *completely* invisible? I.e., the question is whether
that it participate in the tree traversal results of WebCGMNode [1], even
tho' it is invalid in any other DOM calls?
[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm20/WebCGM20-DOM.html
So there are two normative bits that contradict in Ch.5.
"...The target APS must not be of type 'grnode'. 'grnode' elements
are not accessible via DOM calls" (while this is in a section
describing XCF processing rules, the statement of the second sentence
seems more general.)
versus
The DOM accessibility implied in [1]. (Limited to detecting its
presence, navigating to its ancestors, siblings, descendents,
etc)
Do we agree that that is the scope of the issue?
I don't have a strong feeling about which way it should be
clarified. I have a mild preference for "completely
invisible". But that might have strange implications for
navigation (don't know -- haven't thought it through). If that were
the case -- bizarre navigation rules -- I could live with "almost
invisible".
-Lofton.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]