[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: further event processing after hyperlink processing?
Hi Lofton, Just wanted to explain "the event is passed along for further processing". It is meant to specify that an implementation should not eat the event. Chances are that there will not be any further processing, but as you pointed out; zooming and panning are 'possible'. I don't think the current wording hurts implementers. -- Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com Thursday, September 22, 2005, 6:28:07 PM, Lofton wrote: LH> Ref: LH> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200509/msg00093.html LH> Comments: 33 LH> ========== LH> QUESTION: what further event processing is possible after hyperlink LH> processing? LH> DISCUSSION: LH> The example in 3.2.1.1 concludes with: LH> "...does not contain a linkuri, then no hyperlink processing occurs and the LH> event is passed along for further processing." LH> Dieter writes, LH> "What further processing should that be? Any event handling will happen LH> before a linkuri gets examined, so if there is no linkuri, the event gets LH> discarded IMO." LH> 5.7.10 says (abbreviated), LH> 1st: Event handlers ... get the event first. If none of the handlers LH> take an explicit action ... to prevent further processing of the given LH> event, then the event is passed on for: LH> 2nd: Cursor change, screentip and hyperlink processing. If link processing LH> does not disable further processing of the given event, then the event is LH> passed on for: LH> 3rd: "Document-wide event processing, such as user agent facilities to LH> allow zooming and panning of a WebCGM document." LH> RECOMMENDATION: leave wording as is in 3.2.1.1 Example. LH> Regards, LH> -Lofton.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]