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

Re: Chris's _replace comment

From: Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:58:43 -0400
Message-ID: <1088157518.20061026105843@itedo.com>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

I don't really like the sentence: "This is the default behavior for
such links."

What does _such links_ refer to? It's confusing.

What not say something like:
"This is the default behavior for CGM-to-CGM links."

It doesn't prevent CGM-to-SVG links (or vice versa), if such
implementation exists.

Also, I find the first sentence _very_ confusing: "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."

I think only a handful of people can understand that sentence; maybe
I'm stupid.

Is that what is meant: "The viewer shall replace in the same
frame and same rectangular area of current CGM picture by the
linked content." (This is easier for me to understand).

I agree that all of this is editorial, all intentions remain the same.

Benoit.


Tuesday, October 24, 2006, 7:15:19 PM, Lofton Henderson wrote:

> [...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 Thursday, 26 October 2006 14:58:18 GMT

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