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

Re: link activation material in CDR

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 08:36:02 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20061003082453.03d60060@localhost>
To: Timur Mehrvarz <timur.mehrvarz@web.de>
Cc: public-cdf@w3.org,public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

Hi Timur,

Thanks for your reply, and for pointing out the new location of the 2.4 
section.

It was actually the informative material in 2.3 that was most interesting 
to WebCGM (and also to me as an SVG WG participant).  Upon initial reading, 
2.3 *seemed* to be making generally applicable recommendations about 
parent-language-dependent treatment of link targets, and illustrating them 
with "for example ... XHTML and SVG ..."

We accept your assertion that they are of limited and specific 
applicability, and are satisfied with your response (below).  We like the 
suggestion in your third paragraph (below) that the material be preserved 
in some appropriate context.

Regards,
-Lofton
(for WebCGM WG)

At 05:43 PM 9/25/2006 +0200, Timur Mehrvarz wrote:

>Hello Lofton.
>
>You are saying sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 are missing.
>
>However, the previous section "2.4 Referencing Child Objects" is not
>missing at all. It has only changed places within the CDRF document.
>It can now be found under section 1.4 here:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/CDR/#referencing-child-objects
>
>Section "2.5 Security Considerations" has indeed been removed. The
>group decided to exclude the topic of security from CDRF.
>
>Section "2.3 Link Activation" has also been removed. The group felt
>this topic was too specific for the CDR Framework document, but is
>now considering to bring it back in the context of the WICD Core
>document. Would you be alright having the text appear in a more XHTML +SVG 
>related context?
>
>Kind regards,
>Timur Mehrvarz
>
>On 13. Sep 2006, at 00:19, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>
>>
>>Hello CDF WG
>>
>>We wonder if you have had any thoughts about this question, that
>>you can share with us graphics people?
>>
>>Best,
>>-Lofton.
>>
>>At 03:54 PM 7/20/2006 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>
>>>Hello public-cdf,
>>>
>>>Looking at "Compound Document by Reference Framework 1.0" (LCWD of
>>>Dec. 2005), the WebCGM WG found the section [1] on linking and
>>>child documents to contain particularly interesting and valuable
>>>informative material.
>>>
>>>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-CDR-20051219/#link-activation- 
>>>child-documents
>>>
>>>We noticed, in the current editors draft [2] (June 2006), that
>>>this material is missing.  (In fact, sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 are
>>>missing.)
>>>
>>>[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/cdf.xhtml
>>>
>>>We are wondering if this is an intentional removal, or rather
>>>whether maybe this is just a transient development stage of the
>>>document that we're seeing?
>>>
>>>(Not speaking for SVG ... but as a participant of the SVG WG, I
>>>would voice the same opinion -- valuable material -- because these
>>>link-target details have progressed alternately and together in
>>>the two specifications, WebCGM and SVG.)
>>>
>>>Best Regards,
>>>Lofton Henderson
>>>(Chair WebCGM WG)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 October 2006 14:35:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:39 UTC