OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cgmo-webcgm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] Question: XCF coding the same as DOM?


Hi,

Here's my opinion on those two questions:
  
From: Lofton Henderson   [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
  1st QUESTION:  Is it our intention that parameter coding in the XCF
  should be the same as in DOM calls?

  RECOMMENDATION:  YES, code the stuff in XCF attributes the same as
  in DOM calls.

Yes. I don't see any reason why we should request implementation to
implement two sets of parsers.


From: Lofton Henderson   [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
  2nd   QUESTION:  Should we keep that consistency even for 'linkuri'?

  RECOMMENDATION:  NO.  (Leave as is, with the user-friendly form for
  this exception.)
  
I agree with no. I don't really see what the benefit would be to the
user. I think the XCF syntax is easy enough to understand as is. It
doesn't really complicate the implementation of the
applyCompanionFile() method since you already have to look for child
elements (for namespace metadata elements).

-- 
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

 
Monday, May 23, 2005, 4:09:41 PM, Dieter wrote:

DW> Hi Lofton,
  
DW> -----Original Message-----
DW> From: Lofton Henderson   [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
DW> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 8:40   PM
DW> To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
DW> Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] Question: XCF coding the same as DOM?


  
DW> WebCGM TC,

DW> While doing some editing, I came up with a couple  
DW> questions.  The 1st is probably trivial; maybe also the 2nd.  Does
DW> anyone disagree with the two RECOMMENDATIONs?  (Dave, can we
DW> reaffirm   these in telecon?)

DW> 1st QUESTION:  Is it our intention that   parameter coding in
DW> the XCF should be the same as in DOM   calls?

DW> Explanation:  Example 4.1 in XCF (CD text) has:
DW> <grobject apsid="id_2"   region="1,200,0,300,100"/>

DW> This is the same as shown in the   DOM table 5.7.6 (CD
DW> text).  There, we subsequently decided:
DW> -- stuff   in 'viewcontext' would be single string with
DW> individual numbers   wsp-separated;
DW> -- stuff in 'region' is delimited string (sec 5.5), with wsp  separation;

DW> RECOMMENDATION:  YES, code the stuff in XCF attributes   the same as in DOM calls.
DW> [DW] Agreed. 

DW> 2nd   QUESTION:  Should we keep that consistency even for   'linkuri'?

DW> Explanation:  For linkuri, the DOM call would   be:

DW> obj1.setAppStructureAttr(
DW> "'http://www.w3.org' 'W3C home page' ''  
DW> 'http://www.cgmopen.org' ''   '_blank'")

DW> The current XCF definition would   be:
DW> <grobject apsid="obj1" ...  >
DW>      <linkuri uri='http://www.w3.org' desc='W3C home page'> 
DW>      <linkuri uri='http://www.cgmopen.org'   behavior='_blank'>
DW> </grobject>

DW> XCF could in fact be   done consistently with the DOM call:
DW> <grobject   apsid="obj1"
DW> linkuri="'http://www.w3.org' 'W3C home page' '' 
DW> 'http://www.cgmopen.org' ''   '_blank'"  />

DW> Advantages for "consistent":  DOM   implementations will
DW> already understand the delimited string with 3n   substrings, so
DW> loadAndApply can use same utilities as DOM API to parse the  
DW> parameter.  JS applications would be more straightforward (if
DW> doing   get/set consecutively).

DW> Disadvantages:  Less user friendly -- the   delimited-string
DW> form is tedious to hand code.  (Other   disadvantages?)

DW> RECOMMENDATION:  NO.  (Leave as is, with the   user-friendly form for this exception.)
DW> [DW] First   thought was no, but then...
  
DW> This   would eliminate the need for a separate <linkURI>
DW> element, which might   actually simplify our interfaces
  
DW> and   DOM calls quite a bit, especially when enumerating
DW> attributes. However, this   would only make sense, if
DW> we at the same time would amend the linkURI   APS Attr to
DW> hold the same string, i.e. merge all linkURIs into
DW> one APS   attribute. This is something that should have been
DW> done at the very   beginning...
DW> I am not sure whether we want to go this far   though.
  
DW>  
  
DW> Cheers,
  
DW> Dieter 

DW> Regards,
DW> -Lofton.





[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]