RE: proposal for this link/tspan discussion

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Jackson [mailto:dino@grorg.org] On Behalf Of Dean Jackson
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 6:45 AM
> To: Jon Ferraiolo
> Cc: 'John Hayman'; www-svg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: proposal for this link/tspan discussion
> 
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Jon Ferraiolo wrote:
> 
> >
> > John,
> > It is true that static viewers are not required to support
hyperlinking.
> > The reason for this is that we were thinking of printers as one
class of
> > static viewers.
> 
> Hmmm... I don't think this is right. This would mean that a printer
> is required to ignore all content in an <a> element.
> I think a printer should be required to support <a>, to the
> extent that it renders the children and never follows the link.

[JF:] That's what I meant. Printers would render the contents of the <a>
element as if it were a <g> but not have to support the ability for
people to put their finger on the generated paper and have the paper
magically change to a different page.

Jon

> 
> > However, it does seem like the SVG spec should formally mention a
> > particular type of viewer being "static plus hyperlinking". This is
> > pretty much what Batik 1.0 shipped (correct me if wrong) and matches
> > with the sort of functionality people think about with Acrobat
Reader
> > (although recent versions of Acrobat support JavaScript onto its own
> > [non-compliant with DOM] APIs).
> >
> > I'll forward this idea to the SVG working group.
> >
> > Jon Ferraiolo
> > SVG 1.0 Editor
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf
> > Of
> > > John Hayman
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:27 AM
> > > To: 'www-svg@w3.org'
> > > Subject: RE: proposal for this link/tspan discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > "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 Thursday, 22 August 2002 12:26:08 UTC