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

Re: link activation material in CDR

From: Timur Mehrvarz <timur.mehrvarz@web.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:43:31 +0200
Message-Id: <D63E5B6A-31D0-40B3-B919-C4D70388F22E@web.de>
Cc: public-cdf@w3.org, public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>

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 Monday, 25 September 2006 17:10:49 GMT

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