ISSUE 9d11: Should lineEdgeTypeDef be generalized or focused?

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

 From my review of Ch.9 defaults stuff, 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200805/msg00005.html
,
one particularly substantive issue stands out:

ISSUE 9d11: Should the lineEdgeTypeDef ACI item be generalized or restrictive?

Discussion:  The lineEdgeTypeDef element in the current (CD) Ch.9 ACI actually allows all of the generality of the corresponding CGM:1999 element. For example, it could allow the redefinition of LineType 3 (dash-dot) to look like 'dash' (LineType 2).  The use case is somewhat lacking in detail, but *seems* to indicate that the purpose is to give uniform appearance to the generic predefined line types, 1..5.  Do we want to allow the generality to change the appearance from the generic description?  Or do we want to try to parameterize so that this could not be done? E.g., lengthOfDash, interDashGap, interDotGap, etc. 

Recommendation: none.  More discussion is needed from users and vendors to refine the desired capabilities in the use cases.  In favor of generality? Or in favor of restrictiveness?

Note:  Presumably ISSUE 9d12 -- same issue about hatchStyleDef -- will have the same resolution.  (Although it is conceivable that the use cases *could* lead to different resolutions.)

[1] http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.1/cd01/WebCGM21-Config.html