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

Chris's _replace comment

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:15:19 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20061024163308.02ff8730@localhost>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

[...changing list to the WG list, for discussion...]

This topic will be on the telecon agenda for Thursday.  Please feel free to 
discuss on this list in advance.

Chris notes that the last sentence of WebCGM's discussion of the "_replace" 
picture behavior ignores that SVG also supports this value.  His suggested 
solution is to delete the first part of the last sentence, which would leave...

[[[
_replace
The viewer shall replace the current CGM picture by the designated CGM 
picture same rectangular area in the same frame as the picture
which refers to this target. If the ending resource (CGM) is the same as 
the linking resource, the viewer does not reload the resource. This is the 
default behavior for such links.
]]]

On the one hand, I agree with Chris that it is editorially inaccurate (or 
ambiguous) as worded.  The word "applicable" is the problem, IMO.  As Chris 
interpreted it, in the broadest sense, indeed "_replace" is also applicable 
to C2S and S2C links (and S2S), not just C2C links.  On the other hand, one 
could claim that we were thinking of "applicable" from the perspective of 
required (conformance) capabilities of WebCGM 2.0 viewers, and therefore 
its use could be defensible from that perspective.

My opinion, bottom line -- the imprecision of the word argues for the 
removal of that phrase.  I would also venture that we did not intend to 
*mandate* WebCGM 2.0 viewer support of anything other than C2C links, i.e., 
the mandatory WebCGM 2.0 viewer capability is unchanged from WebCGM 
1.0.  So whatever change we make should not imply any changed conformance 
requirements.

So ... thoughts?  Does Chris's proposed change satisfy everyone?  And 
equally importantly, is everyone satisfied that it is editorial?  (Anything 
other than editorial is awkward / inadmissible, at PR stage!)

-Lofton.

At 04:38 PM 10/20/2006 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:

>Hello public-webcgm,
>
>In picture behaviours:
> 
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PR-webcgm20-20061017/WebCGM20-IC.html#webcgm_3_1_2_2
>
>_replace
>     The viewer shall replace the current CGM picture by the designated
>     CGM picture same rectangular area in the same frame as the picture
>     which refers to this target. If the ending resource (CGM) is the
>     same as the linking resource, the viewer does not reload the
>     resource. Applicable only to CGM-to-CGM links, this is the default
>     behavior for such links.
>
>The last sentence is incorrect; since SVG also has an _replace value,
>then this value will apply to WebCGM-to-SVG links (and the corresponding
>value in SVG will apply to SVG-to-WebCGM links).
>
>Suggested change:
>
>s/Applicable only to CGM-to-CGM links, this/This/
>
>I believe that this is an editorial change and that this error is due to
>an oversight. In WebCGM 1,0, it was true that HTML did not have the
>value and thus WebCGM 1.0 was the only spec that had it. This has not
>been true since SVG 1.0 added the same value as WebCGM has.
>
>--
>  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 Tuesday, 24 October 2006 23:15:35 UTC

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