Re: Can we be more concrete?
Subject: Re: Can we be more concrete?
From: "W. Eliot Kimber" <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 10:36:26 -0900
From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Dec 30 12: 38:22 1996
X-Hobby: low-tide clam sexing
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
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 >
<area id=area1 ...>
If I understand you correctly, the "name" in your discussion would be the
ID of the areas in the image map document.
W. Eliot Kimber (email@example.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"