W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > July 2006

Re: picture behaviors

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:37:17 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20060717101405.045dfec0@localhost>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>,public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

At 03:18 PM 7/17/2006 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:

>Hello public-webcgm-wg,
>
>SVG WG recently had some comments about the target attribute, which is
>drawn from WebCGM 1 picture behaviors. The thread is at:
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Jul/0031.html
>
>The commentor claims that what WebCGM and SVG do is different to what
>HTML does - specifically with iframe.
>
>A quick review (and pointing out if I have misunderstood WebCGM picture
>behaviors) would be helpful.

Let's put it on the Thursday telecon.  Everyone, please read and ponder the 
issues raised in the thread.

I briefly note some history here:

1.) WebCGM 1.0 1999 -- everything was *only* defined in terms of (X)HTML 
frames (no objects, no iframes, etc);
2.) SVG borrowed and generalized to other presentational contexts;
3.) WebCGM 2.0, in response to a reviewer comment, followed SVG lead by 
generalizing the presentational contexts (May 2006), to be more "CDF friendly".

That said, I myself have not carefully thought through all the scenarios, 
in the 2.0 generalized contexts, in all of the permutations and 
combinations.  I doubt many in the WebCGM community have done so, as this 
was driven less by constituent use cases than by our attempts to align more 
smoothly with other W3C technologies.

Chris, I hope you can be at the Thursday telecon?  You have probably 
thought more carefully about it in SVG-like generality (I recall that there 
have been past SVG discussions).

Cheers,
-Lofton.
Received on Monday, 17 July 2006 16:37:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:09 GMT