W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > December 1996

Re: Can we be more concrete?

From: W. Eliot Kimber <eliot@isogen.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 10:36:26 -0900
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961230102248.00aa2a80@uu10.psi.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
At 10:37 AM 12/30/96 -0600, len bullard wrote:

>of name to pixel coordinates.  What the calling document passes is 
>the name, perhaps the handler name, and a command string telling 
>the handler to open up at the image zoomed to that region.
>
>Right now, to do this sort of thing, we keep two different sets of 
>independent links (e.g, structs).  One for the image handler's 
>view of a document set; one for the SGML handler's document set.
>What we need is for these to be one set.

In the HyTime model, these would be location addresses, not links.  I'm not
sure I understand the point of your comment: I thought my proposal was
sufficient (not that I was trying to propose a useful scheme for doing
image addressing--it was just a quick example).

Certainly the image map could be another document, e.g.:

<!DOCTYPE ImageMap SYSTEM "imagemap.dtd" [
 <!ENTITY image SYSTEM "http://www.ti.com/parts/images/foo.gif" NDATA GIF >
]>
<image image=image>
 <area id=area1 ...>
 ...
</image>

If I understand you correctly, the "name" in your discussion would be the
ID of the areas in the image map document.

Cheers,

E.

--
W. Eliot Kimber (eliot@isogen.com) 
Senior SGML Consulting Engineer, Highland Consulting
2200 North Lamar Street, Suite 230, Dallas, Texas 75202
+1-214-953-0004 +1-214-953-3152 fax
http://www.isogen.com (work) http://www.drmacro.com (home)
"Rats in the morning, rats in the afternoon...if they don't go away, I'll be
re-educated soon..."                 --Austin Lounge Lizards, "1984 Blues"
Received on Monday, 30 December 1996 12:38:22 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:03:50 EDT