[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] setRedraw002: 'add' or 'addHighlight'?
We do addHighlight. Wow, don't know if I missed this... or if I voted against it and lost the vote... I'd prefer 'addHighlight' over 'add'... but since the wording has been like that since Oct 2006, I don't have much of an argument. I'll include two additional keywords to our implementation: add and new. Benoit -----Original Message----- From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 12:33 PM To: CGM Open WebCGM TC Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] setRedraw002: 'add' or 'addHighlight'? Implementors -- At least one implementation does this ('add' vs. 'addHighlight') wrong. Or at least an early-2009 version did it wrong. Please check your implementation. All -- It has been asserted that setRedraw002 might be wrong: >[...] >setRedraw002 ... I think the test is invalid. What was the agreement >again about the keywords, add or addHighlight? There was some discussion about this in January (mostly in the WG). It is a slightly confusing situation, but (IMHO) the 2.0 standard is clearly specified (as is 2.1). Here is my research and my conclusions. 2.0 SPEC: ----- First, here is what the 2-1/2 year-old 2.0 spec says (and 2.1 spec as well): >Ch.3 "IC" normative spec: the keywords in fragment are newHighlight >and addHighlight. If you generate a URI fragment (in a CGM-to-CGM >link, in a HTML-to-CGM link, etc) with highlight controls, you use those keywords. > >Ch.5 "DOM" normative spec: if you want to control highlighting through >a DOM highlight() call, you use 'new' and 'add'. > >As long as you follow the 2.0 specification for highlighting in >fragments, and follow the 2.0 specification for highlighting via DOM >highlight() calls, everything is fine, as long as your viewer has >correctly implemented the specification. setRedraw002 test (.htm): ----- It uses 'add' in its highlight() method call, consistent with the 2.0 spec. WG Resolution: ----- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2009Jan/0028.html Since I find nothing more in the archive about this topic, I assume the resolution is "no change to 2.0 spec". (Else, we would have had to generate a 2.0 erratum, yes?) Conclusion: ----- If one uses the DOM highlight() method, the parameter value to use is 'add'. On the other hand, if one embeds object behavior keywords into a URI fragment (i.e., #webcgm-fragment-stuff), the keyword is 'addHighlight'. Thought or comments? Regards, -Lofton. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]