[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Draft DOM document
At 10:50 PM 6/7/2004 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote: > [...] > > I doubt section 1.1.1 Relationship with XML companion file to be > clear enough, I'd like to hear opinions on what is missing if > possible. It's a good start. About item 1.) in 1.1.1, there are really two flavors: 1a.) Replace existing standard ApsAttr metadata that are present in the WebCGM instance with new values; 1b.) Supply standard WebCGM ApsAttr metadata to APS's in the WebCGM instance that contain no values. The text says 1a now, but I think 1b is at least as important a use case (if not more so). 1.1.3 Comment. see my comments (just sent to list of individuals) about this point in Dave's draft minutes. Interface Metafile Comment. I don't feel strongly about it, but the three attributes are cgmDescription, cgmId, cgmVersion. Would it be better to call them metafileDescription, metafileId, metafileVersion, which are their actual names is the CGM:1999 standard? s/Returns the Metafile Descriptor/Returns the Metafile Description (string)/ 1st green box: cgmId (metafileId) is not the file name of the metafile; it is the (string) parameter of the Begin Metafile element. On Interface Node you ask: "// should attributes be here or in another interface?" Is this a matter of style, or are there significant functional differences? (Can you show the alternative you have in mind?) Out of time for now (still reading). Maybe more later. -Lofton. > If people have no objections, I'd like to propose that during the > call on Wednesday, we start working on the green boxes. We have to > get ride of all the green boxes, they represent questions/issues > that need to be resolved. > > Unfortunately, there are some differences between what we agreed > upon in Cologne and what is in this document. I tried to keep the > number of differences to a minimum... > > 1) We never talked about error handling and exceptions; all DOM > specifications I know about throw exceptions when appropriate. I > think the WebCGM DOM should also use exceptions. > > 2) I added an AppStructure interface because putting everything on > the Node interface wasn't working. The main reason is that too many > APIs would have resulted in a strange behavior on the newly added > namespace application structures. > > 3) The third major change is that I've introduced > getAppStructureAttr, setAppStructureAttr and removeAppStructureAttr > to replace all the specific APS attribute calls we had enumerated. > If people don't like this, I'm certainly open to reverting back this > change. There are two reasons why I made this switch; i) to be > similar to the DOM getAttribute and setAttribute methods and ii) to > reduce the number of API in our interfaces. > > Please let me know what you think! > > Regards, > >-- > Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]