logical flaw with new SPs initial value?

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

All --

As we have been discussing (on the TC list [0]) issues that Benoit raised 
about fill-related new SPs, I have noticed what might be a subtle logical 
flaw in the specification of the new 2.1 SPs.

Have a look at the table [1].  Notice the "Initial value" column.  Now go 
look at the inheritance model [2].

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-DOM.html#styleprop-table
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-DOM.html#L2666

It appear to me, from [2], that there is always a valued defined for each 
SP.  The value, after application of the inhertance model of [2], comes 
back to the Initial Value if no explicit DOM calls have been made.

Notice the old (2.0) SPs -- their Initial Values are all such that the 
value of the associated CGM attribute is unaltered if there is no explicit 
SP setting via DOM calls.  That is the intention of "100%" and "metafile", 
I believe.

Now have a look at the new (2.1) SPs.  Their initial values are particular 
values of the associated CGM attribute.  Therefore, with no SP-setting DOM 
calls, there is some implication of an initial value of the SP that could 
be at odds with the contents of the metafile.  The outcome of such a state 
is somewhat ambiguous.  We apparently were careful to avoid that trap with 
2.0, by appropriate choice of Initial Value.

Am I missing something?  Does the 2.1 spec say anywhere that, despite the 
establishment of definite values for everything with the inheritance model 
[2], there shall be no action to override attributes in an APS without 
explicit SP-setting calls?  (I can't find anything like that.)

Solution?  One option would be to mimic the 2.0 Initial Values.  For 
example, the I.V. of interior-style would be "metafile" instead of "1".

Thoughts?

-Lofton.