Re[5]: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: what does 'get..' return? [2 of 2]

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

With the clarifications this morning and my own progress in understanding 
5.4 (sorry if it was glacial!), I have no objections to any of what we have 
worked out in this thread about the ApsAttrs, 'interactivity' and 'visibility'.

Specifically...

At 10:24 AM 5/9/2005 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>[...]
>LH> Consensus(?):  It seems, from the thread, that everyone can accept
>LH> "empty string".
>I think we should make this a consensus...

Yes.


>LH> There are a couple of peripheral and IMO orthogonal
>LH> questions, like "Should we add 'inherit' to the list of settable
>LH> values of...?"
>Dieter was asking for this. I think that the implementation cost of
>adding 'inherit' is quite low. Forrest also mentioned 'inherit' some
>time ago. So let's add it in. Any objections?
>
>Proposal 'visibility' and 'interactivity':
>Initial value: on
>Applies to: layer, grobject, para, subpara
>Inherited: yes
>Valid values:  on, off, inherit
>
>Note: the XCF DTD has to be updated.

No objections.  My main concern, after clearly understanding how it works 
(done), was adding to an already big implementation task.  If implementors 
agree that cost is acceptably low, I'm happy.

>[...]
>I think the need for 'inherit' on 'visibility' and 'interactivity' is
>demonstrated by Dieter's use case (i.e., XCF). It's true that we have
>a missing feature there. If that feature will get use frequently, I
>honestly don't know? But the implementation cost is very small, so
>let's add it.

Likewise, I'm uanble to measure the importance of the particular use 
case.  But if the risk is low, if the cost is small, if it can be clearly 
and cleanly explained as part of the model ... then in the balance I agree, 
let's add it.

>[...]
>Yes. But I think we should allow for setAppStructureAttr("visibility",
>"inherit"), or else the users will be asking questions (i.e, why is it
>a valid value in the XCF and not in the DOM API).

Agreed, it would be odd otherwise.


>It seems like we are close to closing down this thread and these
>issues.

Onward to "style properties"!

Cheers,
-Lofton.