Re: [uiml-comment] Summary of issues raised by Takashi Endo and suggestedUIML 4.0 changes

[takashi.endou.zs@kyocera.jp]

Mr. Vermeulen

Thank you Jo Vermeulen.

The point I would like to indicate is not whether there must be
one unique top part.

The point is that Listing 9 will not result in Listing 10.

If we don't use the parametrization, Listing 9 is described as
following.
(I have found  Listing 9 misses an element "style".)

<uiml>
  <interface>
    <structure>
      <part id="id1" source="#tpl" how="replace">
      </part>
    </structure>
  </interface>
  <template id="tpl">
    <part>
      <part id="entry_copy" class="Entry"/>
      <part id="btn_copy" class="Button">
        <style> <!-- The original Listing 9 misses it -->
          <property name="label">Click to copy</property>
        </style> <!-- The original Listing 9 misses it -->
      </part>
    </part>
  </template>
</uiml>

I think this results in the following listing when the template is
inserted.

<uiml>
  <interface>
    <structure>
      <part id="id1">
        <part id="id1_tpl_entry_copy" class="Entry"/>
        <part id="id1_tpl_btn_copy" class="Button">
          <style>
            <property name="label">Click to copy</property>
          </style>
        </part>
      </part>
    </structure>
  </interface>
</uiml>

The top part "id1" survives. And the FQIDs contain "id1_tpl_".


>>
>> 5) 8.3.3 Template parameterization example, Listing 10 seems to be
>> missing the container part.
>>
>> Suggested change: Kris/Jo, can you please send me an expanded version
>> of the listing, or let me know that it is OK as is?
> 
> 
> Well, in fact our renderer will take care of this. If  there are multiple
> "top" parts, we just create another top widget to contain these parts. I'm
> not sure that this is UIML-compliant behavior though. Have we agreed that
> there has to be one unique top part? Then it's probably best to change the
> example.
> 

Best regards,
Takashi
-- 
Takashi Endoh
email: takashi.endou.zs@kyocera.jp