Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Comments on 5.7.9 & 5.7.10

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Ulrich found one problem that I would like someone to suggest the solution 
for (I'm trying not to slow down on editing now).

Benoit, can you look at it for a minute?  (You're the original author of 
this section.)

See third item below...

At 04:31 PM 10/25/2005 +0200, Ulrich Laesche wrote:
>[...]
>If this is still of use here are two editorial comments and one comment
>regarding the content of chapters 5.7.9 & 5.7.10.
>
>At the very bottom of chapter 5.7.10:
>
>mouseup: ... when it was released populated ...
>should be:  ... when it was released is populated ...

Fixed.


>mouseout: ... that the mouse pointer moved away ...
>should be: ... that the mouse pointer moved away from ...

Fixed.


>In addition, the bulleted list:
>
>"If there are no graphics objects whose interactive region is under the
>mouse (i.e., there is no target object), the event is not dispatched.
>Otherwise, the Metafile is checked to see if it has an appropriate event
>handler. The event is dispatched to the event handler if an appropriate one
>is found.
>Otherwise, the event is discarded."
>
>The otherwise in the second topic implies a different order as in the
>section following immediately after, starting with:
>
>"The processing order for user interface events is as follows:"
>
>The processing order is clearly described in any case, so may be the
>bulleted list is not so important.

Yes, the wording needs a little work.  Bullet's #2 and #3 together imply 
that the event is discarded if there is no event handler on WebCGMMetafile, 
which is not what we intend.  (I think the sentence before the bullet list 
is problematic also.)

Solution?  Suggestions?

-Lofton.

>P.S.: I agree with Benoit's comments on Dieter's mail, i.e. the attributes
>"should be set to null, "" or 0 depending on the type."