- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:49:46 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- CC: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
Lofton Henderson wrote: Should we consider this comment as a Last Call comment ? as it was not sent to the proper list. > > At 03:18 PM 7/17/2006 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote: > >> Hello public-webcgm-wg, >> >> SVG WG recently had some comments about the target attribute, which is >> drawn from WebCGM 1 picture behaviors. The thread is at: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Jul/0031.html >> >> The commentor claims that what WebCGM and SVG do is different to what >> HTML does - specifically with iframe. >> >> A quick review (and pointing out if I have misunderstood WebCGM picture >> behaviors) would be helpful. > > Let's put it on the Thursday telecon. Everyone, please read and ponder > the issues raised in the thread. > > I briefly note some history here: > > 1.) WebCGM 1.0 1999 -- everything was *only* defined in terms of (X)HTML > frames (no objects, no iframes, etc); > 2.) SVG borrowed and generalized to other presentational contexts; > 3.) WebCGM 2.0, in response to a reviewer comment, followed SVG lead by > generalizing the presentational contexts (May 2006), to be more "CDF > friendly". > > That said, I myself have not carefully thought through all the > scenarios, in the 2.0 generalized contexts, in all of the permutations > and combinations. I doubt many in the WebCGM community have done so, as > this was driven less by constituent use cases than by our attempts to > align more smoothly with other W3C technologies. > > Chris, I hope you can be at the Thursday telecon? You have probably > thought more carefully about it in SVG-like generality (I recall that > there have been past SVG discussions). > > Cheers, > -Lofton. > > > -- Thierry Michel W3C
Received on Monday, 17 July 2006 16:50:35 UTC