RE: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: is apsid an attribute?

[Dieter Weidenbruck <dieter@itedo.com>]

I agree with Benoit.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benoit Bezaire [mailto:benoit@itedo.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 4:25 PM
> To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: is apsid an attribute?
>
>
> Hi Lofton,
>
> See inline...
>
> Thursday, July 7, 2005, 9:20:30 PM, Lofton wrote:
>
> LH> Source:  editors / test writers.
>
> LH> ISSUE:  does the apsid parameter of the BegAps element show up as an
> LH> attribute in the DOM?
>
> LH> DESCRIPTION:
>
> LH> WebCGMNode contains a boolean method, hasAttributes(), and an
> attribute of
> LH> type node-list, 'attributes'.  What qualifies as an attribute is not
> LH> defined anywhere.
> Right and we should probably correct that.
>
> LH>   The obvious thing that comes to mind is APS Attributes
> LH> (on APS nodes).  The text says the value of 'attributes' will
> be null in
> LH> the case that the WebCGMNode has no attributes.
>
> LH> WebCGMAppStructure, which inherits from WebCGMNode, has an additional
> LH> attribute, 'apsId'.
> Right, just like the DOM/SVG element interface has an 'id' attribute.
> It's a convenience method that is frequently used by script writers.
>
> LH>   In metafiles, the apsid is a parameter on the BegAps
> LH> element (along with the 'type' and the 'inheritance flag' parameters).
> Yes, the DOM and CGM meaning of apsid are not exactly the same.
>
> LH> The initial code of the test Node-attr.html shows that the
> apsid is being
> LH> treated in the test as if it is an 'attribute'.
> I did the test and that's how our implementation currently works.
>
> LH> So should DOM return the metafile apsid as an 'attribute' (WebCGMNode
> LH> interface), or only as the 'apsId' on the WebCGMAppStructure
> interface, or
> LH> both?
> I went for both, it would be good if people could share their thoughts
> on this. I thought we agreed on that, but it probably wasn't a minuted.
>
> LH> It seems to me that the way we designed the interfaces and their
> LH> methods/attributes seems to hint at "only 'apsId'".  On the
> other hand,
> LH> Benoit seems to remember some past decision for 'attribute'
> or "both".  If
> LH> that is the case, note that hasAttributes() will always
> return true for an
> LH> APS node (by far its most usual usage, if not the only usage), and
> LH> 'attributes' will always have a count of at least 1.  Also
> note that in
> LH> XCF, apsid is a required XML attribute on all the APS
> elements (and the
> LH> bindById, of course).
>
> LH> It is not really critical *how* we answer it.  We have some
> freedom in how
> LH> we map the structured metafile instance onto an XML-like DOM
> tree.  But it
> LH> is critical that we have a clear answer and document it.
> Yes.
>
> I don't have a really strong opinion about this... but in XML, 'id' is
> an attribute; and we have apsid required on all XCF elements (except
> for bindByName). We have ask ourselves if we want a DOM that script
> writers will easily understand or if we want a DOM that is very closely
> linked to the CGM format (which only this group understands).
>
> LH> ALTERNATIVES:
> LH> Alt.1:  'apsId' only
> LH> Alt.2:  'attribute' only (which would mean eliminate 'apsId')
> LH> Alt.3:  both
>
> LH> RECOMMENDATION:  none yet, TC should discuss.  Implementors,
> what have you
> LH> done?
> I don't have a strong opinion, I'll vote for Alt 3 mostly because I
> don't feel like changing my code; but also because it is harmless.
>
> LH> Regards,
> LH> -Lofton.
>
> --
>  Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com
>
>