- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:42:37 -0400
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Hey Norm, On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 04:08:01PM -0400, Norman Walsh wrote: > / Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> was heard to say: > | Greetings XML Core WG. The following are the comments of the Compound > | Document Formats WG in response to the Last Call WD of XLink 1.1 ... > | > | The CDF WG recognizes that the XLink 1.1 specification provides some > | very useful capabilities that we will continue to track for ongoing > | CDF specification work. It is the recommendation of the CDF WG that > | providing a generic parameter passing mechanism, such as html:object's: > | > | <html:object type="image/svg+xml" data="child.svg" > > | <html:param name="eventBubbleUp" value="true" /> > | </html:object> > | > | would make the specification more useful for supporting CDF use cases. > > I think that is outside of the scope of the changes we are chartered > to make. That may very well be; we didn't check the chartered scope of the effort. >That said, I'm not really sure I understand what you're asking > for, could you elaborate a little? Just that when linking is done with "inclusion" semantics, i.e. where the included content is to be seen as logically a "peer" with the document that links to it (as with html:object, or html:img), the relationship often necessitates the passing of additional parameters. See the example above. As XLink supports these same inclusion semantics via show="embed", we thought that parameter support would also be nice to have, at least for our requirements... though the group didn't specifically discuss 'show="embed"'. Just my 2c based on what I understood of concensus in the WG... Cheers, Mark.
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 17:40:22 UTC