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 11:04:16 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

At 06:49 PM 7/17/2006 +0200, Thierry MICHEL wrote:
>Lofton Henderson wrote:
>Should we consider this comment as a Last Call comment ?
>as it was not sent to the proper list.

I don't think we should *formally* consider it as such yet, for the reason 
you mentioned -- the comment was not made to WebCGM, but rather to SVG.

Nevertheless, I think we should deal with it informally -- discuss and 
understand it -- it may well become a WebCGM Last Call comment from someone.

Chris has also suggested that it go onto CDF's agenda.  I'm uncertain how 
that is to be coordinated -- whether CDF should lead, or WebCGM, or both 
consider it independently [, or SVG], or ...


>>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:
>>>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).
>Thierry Michel
Received on Monday, 17 July 2006 17:04:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:38 UTC