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 08:32 AM 7/6/2004 +0200, Dieter Weidenbrueck wrote:
>Hi Lofton,
>
> >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.
>
>I vote for an erratum plus a non-normative note.
>
>Reason:
>- if we fix it "retroactively" it provides for the correct way to
>   use WebCGM 1.0 in the future. If we wouldn't do it this way, it
>   would still be "legal" as per WebCGM REC to do the wrong thing.
>- There should be a non-normative note explaining the situation,
>   and suggesting that vendors continue to support the "name" if
>   they have done so up to now.

I agree.  And want to add a slightly different angle to it -- I wasn't 
thinking completely clearly yesterday afternoon.

The issue in question is purely about proper HTML usage -- how to properly 
identify an OBJECT instance within HTML content and reference it.  It 
really has nothing to do with WebCGM.  (It would apply to embedding *any* 
OBJECT in a HTML page.)

It is nice that we showed, in WebCGM 1.0, how to use the facilities of HTML 
to embed a CGM picture in an HTML page.  But I'm not sure that it is our 
business to legislate normatively how to write HTML.  (Especially, since we 
got it wrong!)  Therefore, I would not consider the questionable text to be 
"normative" in any sense.

(Note this OBJECT-referencing issue differs from the URI fragment syntax, 
which is purely the business of the application-format plugin, and differs 
from the contents of the PARAM element, which similarly are entirely the 
object handler's business.  These *are* our business to address normatively.)

Therefore I think the erratum should correct the text and show the correct 
"for example" of how to identify and reference OBJECT elements within 
HTML.  I don't mind that a "Note" also document that previous WebCGM text 
showed it wrong.


>I am not sure whether we have to look at the <embed> tag for the same
>reason. I don't have the time right now to check whether we have any
>reference to it in the spec.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 'embed' is not standard HTML or XHTML, 
right?  I think it was invented by Netscape, and never made it into 
standard HTML (OBJECT was the W3C solution to generalized object embedding.)

For that reason, we don't reference it in the spec, and probably should not 
attempt to do so (W3C would not like that in a Rec, and Chris was former 
HTML WG guru).

-Lofton.




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