W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > March 2007

Re: SVG Linking Test Case Questions

From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:34:56 -0500
Message-ID: <da131fde0703291234u6e2c8079m7008606499397afb@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>, public-cdf@w3.org, www-svg@w3.org

On 1/12/07, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 7:52:53 PM, Jeff wrote:
>
> JS> 1)
> JS> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlObjectHarness/full-linking-a-01-b.html
>
> JS> I'm confused by the phrase "should replace the initial view of this
> JS> test case in the viewer frame".  When clicking the arrow which of
> JS> these alternatives is correct:
>
> JS> a) Entire browser window gets replaced by linkingCircle-f.svg (test
> JS> case with explanatory text not present)
>
> JS> b) The contents of the HTML:object frame on the left gets replaced by
> JS> linkingCirlce-f.svg (test case with explanatory text is visible).
>
> b) is correct. This is why the png reference image shows what it looks
> like when b) happens.
>
> An issue with testing this sort of functionality is that the tests are
> intended to be separate from the test harness. The tests can be run
> standalone (eg, loading the svg files one by one into a viewer), or
> using an svg harness, or using an html object harness, or an html
> embed harness. other custom harnesses (eg a script based one, a
> harness that shows an extra image for regression testing, whatever)
> are possible.
>
>
> This test could be made clearer, for the html object harness, at the
> expense of making it specific to that harness. we tried to avoid that.
> Can you suggest improved wording that would improve this case while
> also allowing for harnesses where the svg  was tested standalone?
>

Chris,

I can't really think of any wording that would clarify this - because
I was thinking that part of this test can be used to ensure that the
UAs can handle some sort of HTML + SVG integration consistently.  With
the full HTML test case harness, this is an example of CDR.  I realize
that this would really be in a CDF test suite and not a SVG test
suite.

Anyway, in the test at
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlObjectHarness/full-linking-a-01-b.html:

1) Firefox 2 and 3a both change the HTML:object "frame" to be that of
linkingCircle-f.svg and leave the test harness HTML alone.
2) Opera 9.1 and Konqueror 3.5.5 both change the entire web page to be
that of linkingCircle-f.svg, wiping out the test harness HTML page.

Do all 4 user agents mentioned above pass this test case when it comes
to SVG?  If I use it to test CDF, which one is at fault?

For practical use of SVG with HTML on the web today, I'd like to be
able to tell one browser A that they need to get in sync with browser
B.  In this case, I believe the correct behavior is exhibited by
Mozilla and that Opera/Konqueror are at fault (because there was no
target="_top" on the link).  But actually I'm still not 100% confident
in that because I'm not sure that the HTML object is really a "frame"
in the parlance of HTML links...

Thanks,
Jeff
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 19:35:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:41 GMT