[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] IE ActiveX Update
Wednesday, April 5, 2006, 2:28:29 PM, you wrote:
> Benoit,
> Thanks to you and Ralf for this heads up. It is ugly. And it is looming,
> like in 1-2 weeks?!
Well, it's hard to say how bad it will really be.
> At 04:49 PM 4/4/2006 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>> Microsoft is about to release some troubling IE updates for ActiveX
>> controls... this is regarding the EOLAS vs Microsoft lawsuit. The
>> deployment (Windows Automatic Update) of these updates will
>> apparently start in April. Future versions of Windows and IE
>> (pre-installed on systems) will be shipping with the update
>> (specific dates unknown).
> As I gather, then very soon the test suite (2.0 parts) will no longer work,
> right? Yikes!!!
It will still work; but on each webcgm test, an additional click will
be required to interact with the CGM image.
> From the telecon, I heard some talk about "delay for 30 days",
> "...June". Can you tell more specifically about the timetable?
I can't go into much detail as I'm uncertain as to how accurate the
information we got was. There are many levels of management within
Microsoft, a decision (delay) could easily occur.
We have heard of a Windows Update next week. Let's see what happens.
> Will all Win/IE systems with Automatic Update get hit in April?
Only IE6 on Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 is affected (so
far). It also depends on the update setting of each systems
(presumably).
> We were just starting the process to publish the test suite, i.e.,
> make the 2.0 bits publicly available for the first time. And this
> is required for W3C process.
Maybe we delay by a week, see what happens?
>> A system with such an updated version of IE will require user
>> interaction (via a click) before a CGM file embedded in HTML can be
>> displayed on screen. A bad user experience is about to begin for CGM
>> users unless they start changing their web pages.
> Please correct me if this is wrong. I looked at the MSDN page that Ralf
> referenced. It seems to me that the CGM picture would display, but it
> would be inactive. Is that right?
It seems so.
> Or ... would our typical 2.0 file not even view, because of we use the DOM
> API to tell the control what CGM to load?
Really, it's too early to tell how it will behave exactly.
> <body
> onload="document.getElementById('ivx1').getWebCGMDocument().src=
> 'AppStructure-visibility.cgm'; OnBtnDOM();">
> [...]
> <td><object id="ivx1"
> type="image/cgm;Version=4;ProfileId=WebCGM"
> width="480" height="360"></object>
>> The workaround suggested by Microsoft, Apple, Macromedia etc... is
>> to remove the <object> tag from HTML pages and add a script to every
>> web page which dynamically inserts an object tag (if the <object>
>> tag is dynamically inserted, it's not in violation of the EOLAS
>> patent).
> Have you (Itedo) guys yet written a prototype/example Test Suite
> (2.0) file that would work (view and be active)?
We have and will continue to investigate... we will communicate our
findings to the group in due time.
>> This needs to be dealt with at multiple level...
>> - CGM vendors have to deal with this (generators of HTML + CGM)
> As I read Ralf's MSDN reference, it actually appears that there are
> multiple possible solutions. One assures that the control is interactive
> when loaded. But the other, if the control were loaded *inactive* and the
> picture were displayed, could be made interactive by a user click. So ...
> is it possible that different fixes might be appropriate for different
> applications?
That may be. We still need to investigate some more.
> (E.g., could a fast fix of "click to activate test" in each
> picture, after ensuring picture is loaded, be used for emergency repair of
> the Test Suite?)
>> - Users needs to update their existing web page (or block the
>> update).
> The latter is impractical.
Right.
>> - How do we (cgmopen) ease the transition for the webcgm community?
>> - The test suite will need to be updated (in my opinion).
> Yes. Do you have an example of what a test fix/update might look
> like, for any one of our 2.0 DOM tests?
We can probably get something to the group shortly after the update
happens.
>> - Some early experiences with Itedo's code base shows some problems
>> with the WebCGM 2.0 'onload' param when the <object> tag is
>> dynamically inserted. This may be specific to our implementation,
> Do you have a simple example of a fix that you think should work,
> but that turns out to be problematic? (The others could play with
> it.)
We haven't gone that far yet.
>> but if not; the group needs to take some decisions about the
>> 'onload' param.
>>
>> It would be good if vendors/users of this mailing list could
>> collaborate about this as it affects all of us.
> Yes.
> As a first priority, and to get discussion started, what is the shortest
> path to making the Test Suite viable again (even if there are some issues
> like the 'onload' PARAM.)
The test suite will work, but it won't be fun to use (it will be a bad
user experience). The shortest path will be to dynamically insert the
<object> tag using a script (apparently). I'll get back to you next
week.
Sorry but I have a lot of code to write. Itedo thought it was
important to inform the group, it is done. Vendors and users should
look into some more. Lets communicate some more next week after the
Update.
> -Lofton.
--
Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected
by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or
any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and
delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]