- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:04:16 -0600
- To: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Cc: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
At 06:49 PM 7/17/2006 +0200, Thierry MICHEL wrote: >Lofton Henderson wrote: > >Should we consider this comment as a Last Call comment ? >as it was not sent to the proper list. I don't think we should *formally* consider it as such yet, for the reason you mentioned -- the comment was not made to WebCGM, but rather to SVG. Nevertheless, I think we should deal with it informally -- discuss and understand it -- it may well become a WebCGM Last Call comment from someone. Chris has also suggested that it go onto CDF's agenda. I'm uncertain how that is to be coordinated -- whether CDF should lead, or WebCGM, or both consider it independently [, or SVG], or ... -Lofton. >>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 17:04:35 UTC