W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > March 2006

Re: CDR: conflicting definitions of the target attribute

From: Kevin E Kelly <kekelly@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 08:58:49 -0500
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-cdf@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFAD2C79B7.0025B2C9-ON8525712B.004B8509-8525712B.004C857A@us.ibm.com>
Maceij,

Please find the responses below marked with [KEK], 

No change was made in response to this comment.  

Please let us know, within 2 weeks, if this change does not address your 
comments. 

Kevin 
On behalf of the CDF WG 

ACTION 364: Reponse to target attribute LC Comment 
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/Group/track/actions/364
Message 15 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2006Jan/0015.html
Discussion at F2F: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-cdf/2006Feb/0089





Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 
Sent by: public-cdf-request@w3.org
01/02/2006 04:55 AM

To
public-cdf@w3.org
cc

Subject
CDR: conflicting definitions of the target attribute








The CDR spec points out that different specs have different behavior 
for the "_self" value of the target attribute on links, and it is 
indeed the case that the SVG Tiny 1.2 spec requests something 
different than HTML. The fact that this occurs is a problem and the 
spec should not encourage this. It tries to make some distinction 
based on "mostly replaced use" but consider a CDR scenario where the 
document included is a CDI - it would be majorly confusing that 
target="_self" would have different behavior for <svg:a> and <html:a> 
in the same document. WebCGM is somewhat different in this regard 
since it does not itself have a DOM or scripting and cannot 
participate in CDI. Therefore:

- I request that the spec not encourage divergent definitions of the 
target attribute.

- I request that the CDF working group formally raise this issue with 
the SVG working group (I will also make sure to raise it myself).

[KEK]  Thank for the comment and the CDF WG is aware of thisbut since we 
use existing markups and 
this should be forwarded onto the SVG working group as you suggest.  The 
CDF WG has also 
brought this to the SVG WGs attention as well.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:55:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:21 UTC