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] ANSWER: Screentip and inheritance question...


Agreed.

-- 
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

 
Friday, June 10, 2005, 2:43:50 AM, Dieter wrote:

DW> I agree with Lofton here.

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 1:46 AM
>> To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] ANSWER: Screentip and inheritance question...
>>
>>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> Rather than queue this as an issue, I'll give what I think is a
>> reasonable
>> answer.  If anyone doesn't like it and wants to raise an issue,
>> please do so.
>>
>> At 04:34 PM 4/21/2005 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >3.2.2.6 Screentip
>> >   - Why is a screentip not inherited?
>>
>> 1.)  Because inheritance of ApsAttrs is a new concept in 2.0, that didn't
>> exist in 1.0, so we didn't consider the question.
>>
>> But considering it now...
>>
>> 2.)  Does it need to be or want to be?  If the mouse is over the MOUSE
>> REGION (MR) of the parent APS, then its screentip is displayed. Doesn't
>> the MR of the parent APS subsume the MRs of any children?  Well,
>> yes and no...
>> 2a).  If no 'region' ApsAttr, then yes.
>> 2b).  If parent has a 'region', then not necessarily.  (Silly)
>> counter-example (syntactically incorrect in some things like SDRs):
>>
>> BegAps "parentId" "grobject"
>> ApsAttr "region" "1 0 0 1 1"
>> ApsAttr "screentip" "lower-left corner (object legend)"
>> ...some stuff drawn in 0 0 1 1...
>> BegAps  "childId" "grobject"
>> ...more stuff drawn in the rectangular area 0 0 10 10
>> EndAps
>> EndAps
>>
>> If 'screentip' inherited, then it would be displayed for that portion of
>> childId that lies outside of the MR of parentId.  I don't think
>> that's what
>> we want.
>>
>> So I'd recommend to leave it alone, since it was 1.0 behavior and not
>> obviously erroneous.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Lofton.





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