[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: re[4]: [cgmo-webcgm] Visibilty & Interactivity defaults
Benoit, > Hi Don, > From section 3.2.2.9 Visibility and 3.2.2.10 Interactivity, both > attributes seem to have an Initial value of: on. > So the above, for a WebCGM renderer should be sufficient. That's is clear. > For a DOM implementation, getAppStructureAttr() says: > returns [...] the Application Structure attribute value as a string, > or the empty string if that attribute does not have an explicitly set > value [...] So if the CGM does an APS ATTRIBUTE of type "visibility" then a getAppStructureAttr("visibility") on that APS would return empty string, correct? > If the tests don't match the specification, then we need to figure out > which one is wrong and fix it. The AppStructure-interactivity test is the one giving me trouble. Here is the confusing html code: var gr = cgmPic.getAppStructureById("plane"); var gr2 = cgmPic.getAppStructureById("plane_1"); var i = gr.getAppStructureAttr("interactivity"); var i2 = gr.getAppStructureAttr("interactivity"); // TBD: non-interactive if ( i == "on" && i2 == "on" ) result.firstChild.nodeValue = "Passed!"; else throw "wrong interactivity value"; Since the CGM does not contain an APS ATTRUBUTE of type "interactivity" then I would expect the getAppStructureAttr("interactivity") to return an empty string. But as you can see from the above code it is expecting "on". Is this test incorrect? Don. > -- > Regards, > Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com > This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected > by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or > any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in > error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and > delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. > Tuesday, May 16, 2006, 2:57:29 PM, you wrote: > > Benoit, > > > Just a note for now. > > > We can't based an implementation on a test suite. It needs to be based > > > on an interpretation of the specification. If the specification does > > > not provide the answer, we need to fix it. > > I agree! But I cannot determine from the Specification what the > > defaults for Visibilty & Interactivity are when there no > > APS ATTRIBUTEs defined in the CGM. > > Don. > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com > > > This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected > > > by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware > > > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or > > > any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in > > > error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and > > > delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. > > > Tuesday, May 16, 2006, 2:39:15 PM, you wrote: > > > > All, > > > > What are the defaults for the Visibility and Interactivity > attributes > > > > when they are not present in the CGM? > > > > The AppStructure-interactivity test suggest that all APS have > > > > an Interactivity attribute even though there is no APS ATTRIBUTE > > > > of type "interactivity" in the CGM as is the case for > > > > AppStructure-interactivity.cgm > > > > The AppStructure-visibility test suggest that APS do NOT have a > > > > "visibility" attribute when no APS ATTRIBUTE of type "visibility" > > > > is present in the CGM. > > > > Can anyone clarify this for me. > > > > Regards, > > > > Don.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]