W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Is it so hard to generate compliant software ?

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:21:15 +0200
Message-ID: <16612067156.20020624202115@w3.org>
To: www-svg@w3.org, "William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
CC: "Goessner / MecXpert" <goessner@mecxpert.de>, www-math@w3.org

On Monday, June 24, 2002, 6:30:25 PM, William wrote:


WFH> "Goessner / MecXpert" <goessner@mecxpert.de> writes:

>> Here is an example using IE6, SvgViewer 3.0 and Mathplayer 1.0 beta 4.
WFH> [snip]
>>   <object id="MathPlayer"
>> classid="clsid:32f66a20-7614-11d4-bd11-00104bd3f987"></object>
>>   <object id="AdobeSVG"
>> classid="clsid:78156a80-c6a1-4bbf-8e6a-3cd390eeb4e2"></object>

WFH> How is one to remember these classid values?  :-)  ...  :-{

Its certainly not good practice to expose the guts of the mechanism
like that in the content. Its bad enough when the content is specific
to one implementation, as here - imagine similar parallel ones added
as well and it quickly becomes even more unworkable.

WFH> This strikes me as unsound practice.

Yes.

WFH>  Why should content providers
WFH> have to deal with them?

They should not.

WFH> Do such methods conform to W3C WAI guidelines?

WFH> In fact, why don't the <object> elements have mime type attributes
WFH> that enable a user to configure his/her platform according to
WFH> taste?

They don't even need that, the namespace uri is sufficient surely.
Bindin objects to prefixes rather than namespace URIs is dubious as
well.

I believe that the point of this example was as a demonstration that
inline xml is possible now, in however unsatisfactory a fashion.


-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Monday, 24 June 2002 14:21:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:51 GMT