OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cgmo-webcgm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] DOM question

At 08:13 PM 7/5/2004 +0200, Dieter Weidenbrueck wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Benoit Bezaire [mailto:benoit@itedo.com]
> >Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 7:45 PM
> >To: Dieter Weidenbrueck
> >Cc: CGM Open Technical Committee
> >Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] DOM question
> >
> >
> >Hi All,
> >
> >  I've attached 3 files (2 svg files and 1 html).  Save all three
> >  files somewhere and open viewers.html.  I'm using an SVG example
> >  since the same concept will apply for our WebCGM DOM.

This is an aside, but I can't find the answer.  As I was looking at this 
svg-based example, the getElementById() caught my attention.  I recall some 
discussion at Cologne about eliminating it, but can't find any details in 

Looking at Benoit's latest DOM draft, on Interface Picture there is 
getAppStructureById(), which I guess serves the purpose for standard WebCGM 

Can someone remind me, why we decided to remove 
getElementById()?  (Potentially applicable to XML companion file 
metadata.)  I don't mean to re-open the argument or advocate for it -- just 
trying to remember.

> >
> >  BTW, the wording of the spec should be changed; the 'name'
> >  attribute in xhtml has been deprecated... it has been replace with
> >  XML:ID.  Therefore, to address a specific 'object', a user should be
> >  referencing the unique 'id'.
>one more defect for Lofton

Whew!  This is a mess.  I think we misread and/or misunderstood the OBJECT 
and PARAMETER element definitions.  The NAME attribute is indeed allowed on 
OBJECT in HTML 4.01, but it refers specifically to "--submit as part of 

And following the link from the 'name' attribute in HTML 4 OBJECT 
definition, one indeed arrives at HTML Forms, where it says that the scope 
of definition of the 'name' is the containing form.  I.e., it is not 
required to be unique like 'id'.  So the WebCGM 1.0 statement, "The CGM 
defined by the object tag can be *uniquely* [my emphasis] addressed using 
the <name> parameter [sic!] of the object tag" -- that's bogus in several 
ways (at least in the HTML context).

WebCGM section 3.4 shows ID as a permissible attribute on OBJECT.  All 
examples (in HTML 4) use 'id' to identify the OBJECT (for referencing).

(Then there is a 'name' attribute on the PARAM element, but it's a totally 
different thing than instance identification).

> >  One I'm not a 100% sure about this part of the wording below:
> >  "However, the specific syntax for addressing a specific CGM in an
> >  HTML page is not standardized.", in my example I know that
> >  everything after "document." is completely standardized.  I just
> >  can't find where the W3C says that a global object called 'document'
> >  is the DOM entry point.
>When we wrote WebCGM 1.0 there was no DOM, hence the addressing of a
>WebCGM viewer was restricted to sending a URL to a frame or window.
>This would only work of course if the CGM took up the entire frame or
>And even this method did not adress a viewer but rather a container for
>a viewer, IE would drop the content of that container and then create
>a new viewer to show the file with the new URL.
>So the wording should probably be changed to:
>"...The CGM defined by the object tag can be uniquely addressed using the
><XML:ID> parameter of the object tag. The WebCGM DOM can then be used to
>manipulate that specific viewer."
>One question: Should we add some words about grandfathering of the
>"name" attribute of the object tag to ensure upward compatibility?

IMO, the 'name' specification in WebCGM 1.0 is an Erratum.  As I noted 
above, that referencing text is wrong in several ways.

That said, I'd like to know how vendors would like to treat it, given that 
the mistake has been sitting there for a few years.  Approaches could range 
from fix it (Erratum fix means "retroactive" in worst case), to 
"grandfather", to somewhere in between, like a non-normative note 
explaining the former glitch in the specification and the fact that there's 
probably some legacy content floating around.


> >
> >  Does this help?
>It does.
>Thanks a lot,
> >
> >  Cheers,
> >
> >--
> > Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com
> >
> >
> >Monday, July 5, 2004, 7:27:07 AM, Dieter wrote:
> >
> >DW> All,
> >DW>
> >DW> the WebCGM Recommendation says:
> >DW>
> >DW> 3.1.4 Addressing one of several viewers from HTML
> >
> >DW> Often, applications will display several pictures in a single
> >DW> HTML page. The only way to address the cgm viewer instance that is
> >DW> responsible for the display of a particular picture is via the
> >DW> "object" tag defined in HTML 4.0. The CGM defined by the object
> >DW> tag can be uniquely addressed using the <name> parameter of the
> >DW> object tag. However, the specific syntax for addressing a specific
> >DW> CGM in an HTML page is not standardized.
> >
> >DW> The Document Object Model (DOM) is currently under
> >DW> development. This work, when completed, is expected to provide a
> >DW> standard basis for addressing this problem.
> >
> >DW>
> >
> >DW> Question: How do we address this problem using the DOM as it
> >is written in the spec?
> >
> >DW> Comments?
> >
> >DW> Regards,
> >
> >DW> Dieter
> >
> >

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]