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

Re: picture behaviors

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 08:04:29 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

[...excuse if you get this twice ... it looks from my OUT box like it was 
sent, but I haven't gotten it back from the WG list yet, and it's not in 
the archive, although a later message is...]

Reading and thinking about the thread, I note this from the 3rd (Chris's 
final) message:

>BZ> Wait.  Why "X" and not "S1"?
>Because that is what WebCGM says for self, and we do the same thing.
>BZ>  Would the behavior be different if <iframe> were
>BZ> used instead of <object>?
>Not that I can see, although the HTML description is less clear and
>seems to be specific to framesets. I assume that this also applies to
>iframe, but perhaps it does not.

I think WebCGM authors 1999 might have assumed this to be true, that the 
HTML description was specific to framesets.  In any case, I think they only 
were interested in framesets when they wrote this stuff.

Note that HTML does draw some distinctions between frames (framesets and 
iframe) and <object>...  "Notes on embedded documents",

By my reading, unfortunately, there is still some ambiguity in HTML about 
frames and objects.  Perhaps CDF helps (I'll look at that next).

Bottom line:  I do know there was no serious discussion of <object> and 
iframe when this stuff was first drafted (by JG) and incorporated into 
WebCGM 1.0 in 1999.  In following SVG's lead to generalize the original 
1999 stuff, we certainly have not yet sorted out all of the various new 
scenarios that are opened up as valid scenarios.

Other interesting HTML references:
About <object>s:
About frames, iframes, etc:

More later,

At 10:37 AM 7/17/2006 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>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).
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2006 14:04:57 UTC

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