RE: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: grnode

["Weidenbrueck, Dieter" <dweidenbrueck@ptc.com>]

Lofton,

 

I think we need to deal with grnodes during traversal.

 

Consider the following (set to CourierNew):

 

Picture

  |

Layer1-Layer2

  |

grobject1  ---------------- grnodeA

  |                           |

grnodeB - grobject2         grobject4 - grnodeC

  |                                        |

grobject3                                grobject5

 

If you traverse the tree treating the grnodes as normal nodes you have a well defined-tree.

If you disregard the grnode nodes, you will never be able to get to grobject4 or grobject5 with child/sibling traversal.

 

Cheers,

Dieter

 

---

From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Montag, 10. März 2008 20:02
To: Bezaire, Benoit; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: grnode

At 12:19 PM 3/10/2008 -0400, Bezaire, Benoit wrote:
> If 
>   'grnode' elements are not 
>   accessible via DOM calls. Why does WebCGMNode.nodeName lists 'grnode' as a 
>   possible value?

Mistake in the document (erratum)?  
They happen.

IMO, it is unambiguous that we intended 'grnode' to be 
*almost* DOM invisible -- it is specified invalid in almost all DOM 
access.  Did we intend *completely* invisible?  I.e., the question is 
whether that it participate in the tree traversal results of WebCGMNode [1], 
even tho' it is invalid in any other DOM calls?

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm20/WebCGM20-DOM.html

So 
there are two normative bits that contradict in Ch.5.  

"...The 
target APS must not be of type 'grnode'. 'grnode' elements are not accessible 
via DOM calls"  (while this is in a section describing XCF processing 
rules, the statement of the second sentence seems more 
general.)

versus

The DOM accessibility implied in [1].  
(Limited to detecting its presence, navigating to its ancestors, siblings, 
descendents, etc)

Do we agree that that is the scope of the issue? 

I don't have a strong feeling about which way it should be 
clarified.  I have a mild preference for "completely invisible".  But 
that might have strange implications for navigation (don't know -- haven't 
thought it through).  If that were the case -- bizarre navigation rules -- 
I could live with "almost invisible".

-Lofton.