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

Re: SVG Linking Test Case Questions

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:31:11 +0200
Message-ID: <6610502058.20070330003111@w3.org>
To: "Jeff Schiller" <codedread@gmail.com>
Cc: public-cdf@w3.org, www-svg@w3.org, sjoerd@w3future.com, bzbarsky@mit.edu, <roc@ocallahan.org>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>

On Thursday, March 29, 2007, 11:54:42 PM, Jeff wrote:

JS> Chris,

JS> I do have one problem though:
JS> http://www.w3.org/TR/WICD/#hyperlinking says

JS> "NOTE: The keyword _self does not mean the same in SVG as it does in
JS> HTML. In HTML it replaces the current document and in SVG it replaces
JS> the parent document."

JS> Based on what you've written, what Sjeord said - is that statement
JS> incorrect?  I believe it is.

Thanks for the heads up.

Originally WICD was pointing to the wording in the WebCGM spec. Then
that was objected to - likely from the same misaprehension mentioned
earlier - and the current wording -- which, as you say, is bogus --
was added instead.

I will make sure this gets discussed in the CDF WG.
JS> Jeff

JS> On 3/29/07, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 29, 2007, 11:18:19 PM, Jeff wrote:
>>
>> JS> Woops, it seems this is really related to the whole target="_self"
>> JS> question that caused so much anger in SVGT 1.2.  Only now am I
>> JS> beginning to understand the picture, eight months after stuff hit the
>> JS> fan...
>>
>> JS> Key Reading:
>> JS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Aug/0053.html
>>
>> Right. HTML 4.0 spec is very poorly worded in this respect; despite
>> having a range of elements (frame, object, applet, iframe ...) it
>> only talks about one of them for target.
>>
>> WebCGM 1.0 had better wording, less specific to the frame element. SVG
>> 1.1 adopted that wording and improved it some more. WebCGM 2.0 took
>> *that* wording and improved it a little more.
>>
>> JS> Basically I agree with Sjoerd.  Now that we have a HTML WG again, it
>> JS> seems like if the HTML spec was updated to specifically state that
>> JS> HTML:object creates a "frame" for its content, then it would be clear
>> JS> what web browsers should do for target="_self" (even in SVG 1.1)
>>
>> Yes. Ideally they would add the current best wording, or even make it
>> clearer again.
>>
>> JS>  and
>> JS> certain folks would be a little happier with the SVG 1.2 spec.  There
>> JS> would be no incompatiblity for HTML UAs,
>>
>> There isn't. That meme grew from some folks misunderstanding "we took
>> the wording from WebCGM" to mean "we don't care about HTML" or "we
>> want to be deliberately incompatible".  Rather than "we want the best,
>> clearest wrding, and as it happens the HTML 4 spec is unclear and
>> inconsistent and doesn't even cover all the elements in HTML 4".
>>
>> In fact that was cleared up on list (by Sjoerd among others) within 24
>> hours, but juicy stories like that have their own life in the
>> blogosphere and still circulate a year or so later.
>>
>> JS>  i.e. _replace would always
>> JS> mean _self and would match the de-facto behavior exhibited by IE and
>> JS> Mozilla.  But of course, Opera would have to update its behavior to
>> JS> match Mozilla's.  Not sure about Safari.
>>
>> JS> Jeff Schiller
>>
>> JS> P.S. I have asked to be included in the new W3C HTML effort, but am
>> JS> waiting for acceptance via email.
>>
>> That should take less than 24 hours.
>>
>> JS>   If anyone feels this email will
>> JS> help that group, please forward it to the mailing list.
>>
>> Sure, although its also in a public archive so easy to point to.
>>
>> JS> On 3/29/07, Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> 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
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>  Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
>>  Interaction Domain Leader
>>  Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
>>  W3C Graphics Activity Lead
>>  Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
>>
>>




-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 22:31:24 GMT

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