W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > August 2002

RE: proposal for this link/tspan discussion

From: John Hayman <JHayman@rim.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:27:14 -0400
Message-ID: <EB552E50D05B2843B69676A642F375EF01DA0064@XCH01YYZ.rim.net>
To: "'www-svg@w3.org'" <www-svg@w3.org>

"Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com> wrote:
> "John Hayman" <JHayman@rim.net> wrote:
> > on devices that don't have pointing devices it is
> > difficult to indicate that there is a "clickable" link.

> Er, why is that? I don't understand that at all, there's lots of ways of
> showing that something is a link that don't rely on a mouse,

Sure, like the cursor or bounding box or masking or what have you.  All are
pretty reasonable actions -- although I still maintain content developers
that are picky about their content will want the control themselves.

> I don't like the idea that requiring dynamic viewers is useful in SVG.

Ack!  I'd never thought of that!!  To me, I always think of hyperlinking to
be dynamic content since it requires user interaction. Decided to recheck
the spec, and it looks like hyperlinking is dynamic content.
  http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/feature#SVG-static
does not include hyperlinks.  
  http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/feature#SVG-dynamic
does include hyperlinks.

So it has never been the case that static viewers support hyperlinking.  It
has always been the case that dynamic viewers support hyperlinking.  Unless
I'm missing something fundamental?

Given that all visual elements are capable of generating mouseover, mouseout
and activate events, it seems to me to be less of a change to handle
hyperlinking that way rather than adding "xlink:href" to every graphical
element.
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 13:27:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:23 GMT