RE: [cgmo-webcgm] WebCGM and the <object> tag

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 04:10 PM 12/7/2004 +0100, Dieter Weidenbrueck wrote:
>so do you want to prohibit all the other ways to "reference" a WebCGM from
>HTML?

It is not possible for us to mandate what is in HTML content, unless we 
believe that we are going to do limited validation of HTML instances.  On 
the other hand, it is possible for us to foster interoperability by 
specifying a single standard way to phrase such references.  That is what 
WebCGM now does.

The specification in WebCGM 1.0 is clear and unambiguous, and was worked 
out in consultation with leading HTML experts, as reflecting the best 
standard way to combine the two standards (HTML and WebCGM).

This dialog supports my concern about interoperability.  Some CGMO vendors 
support what's in WebCGM 1.0, some support another scheme.  Where's the 
interoperability there?  If all supported *at least* the specification in 
WebCGM 1.0, then the same content package of HTML + WebCGM could work on 
different browser + viewer combinations.  Is that not a good goal?  (It's 
why WebCGM 1.0 is written the way it is -- this was discussed and 
deliberated 5 years ago.)

-Lofton.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 3:50 PM
>To: dieter@itedo.com; Benoit Bezaire
>Cc: CGM Open WebCGM TC
>Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] WebCGM and the <object> tag
>
>
>At 08:49 AM 12/7/2004 +0100, Dieter Weidenbrueck wrote:
>
> >[...]
> >
> >Probably the best way to handle this variety of options is to say "viewers
> >are expected
> >to handle OBJECT tags with the following parameters" or similar.
>
>I am opposed to such waffle wording.  The wording in the WebCGM 1.0
>specification is perfectly clear and unambiguous, IMO, and describes a
>single well-defined way to achieve the intended effect.  (It is also well
>founded in W3C standards, as it was co-designed by Chris Lilley, who
>chaired the HTML Working Group).
>
>-Lofton.