Re: picture behaviors

Another interesting reference (Dec. 2005), with a fair amount of discussion 
of "picture behaviors":
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-CDR-20051219/#link-activation-child-documents

I notice, however, that it has all disappeared from the current CDRF 
editors draft (June 2006):
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/cdf.xhtml

Did it get re-factored into another document?

-Lofton.

At 07:43 AM 7/19/2006 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:


>Reading and thinking about the thread, I note this from the 3rd (Chris's 
>final) message:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Jul/0049.html
>
>>BZ> Wait.  Why "X" and not "S1"?
>>
>>Because that is what WebCGM says for self, and we do the same thing.
>>
>>BZ>  Would the behavior be different if <iframe> were
>>BZ> used instead of <object>?
>>
>>Not that I can see, although the HTML description is less clear and
>>seems to be specific to framesets. I assume that this also applies to
>>iframe, but perhaps it does not.
>
>I think WebCGM authors 1999 might have assumed this to be true, that the 
>HTML description was specific to framesets.  In any case, I think they 
>only were interested in framesets in mind when they wrote this stuff.
>
>Note that HTML does draw some distinctions between frames (framesets and 
>iframe) and <object>...  "Notes on embedded documents",
>http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#embedded-documents
>
>By my reading, unfortunately, there is still some ambiguity in HTML about 
>frames and objects.  Perhaps CDF helps (I'll look at that next).
>
>Bottom line:  I do know there was no serious discussion of <object> and 
>iframe when this stuff was first drafted (by JG) and incorporated into 
>WebCGM 1.0 in 1999.  In following SVG's lead to generalize the original 
>1999 stuff, we certainly have not yet sorted out all of the various new 
>scenarios that are opened up as valid scenarios.
>
>Other interesting HTML references:
>About <object>s:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#h-13.1
>About frames, iframes, etc:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html#h-16.1
>
>More later,
>-Lofton.
>
>
>At 10:37 AM 7/17/2006 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 20 July 2006 13:09:19 UTC