Ulrich,
What I understood from Don’s email is that his user base
is using a SRC PARAM keyword to specify the source CGM document. His
implementation is retrieving the SRC value using DoPropExchange. SRC is not in
any spec that I know about though.
What’s still unclear is to me is if Don’s user base
also use the ‘data’ attribute in conjunction with SRC PARAM, but I’m
assuming that’s not the case (wouldn’t make much sense to specify
the same information twice).
Care to share what your users do? ‘data’ attribute
or a PARAM? Or both?
Cheers,
Benoit
From: Ulrich Laesche
[mailto:ulrich@cgmtech.de]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 12:22 PM
To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Problem with OBJECT and PARAM tags
I don’t understand this mail.
Ben wrote:
“Do other vendors use DoPropExchange to get the
<PARAM>s?”
Don responded:
“We are still using DoPropExchange to get cgm file via
PARAM and SRC keyword.”
So what knowledge should have been shared?
Regards
Ulrich
From: Bezaire, Benoit
[mailto:bbezaire@ptc.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 1. Juni 2010 17:57
To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Problem with OBJECT and PARAM tags
We have a ‘src’ PARAM as well, but I don’t
know why (been there for years as far as I know).
From: Lofton Henderson
[mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:52 AM
To: Bezaire, Benoit; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Problem with OBJECT and PARAM tags
+1 to Benoit's question.
Could we now please hear from everyone who has experience with this
issue? Vendors and users?
It appears that we are going to need to find a way forward -- either a
workaround, or a quick addendum to the standard, or cascaded profile, or ...
Don, is there a reason that you choose 'src' as the param name? I have
seen it used before in proprietary extensions. (Maybe it is just the
obvious choice, but I'm wondering if it shows up in any published examples.)
-Lofton.
At 10:41 AM 6/1/2010 -0400, Bezaire, Benoit wrote:
May I ask why this knowledge wasn t shared with the group?
We could (for example) have standardized the src param in WebCGM 2.1
From: Don Larson [mailto:dlarson@cgmlarson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 10:25 AM
To: Bezaire, Benoit; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: re: [cgmo-webcgm] Problem with OBJECT and PARAM tags
Benoit
>
> Hi All,
>
> It has come to our attention that IE has a limitation related
to the
> <object> data attribute and <PARAM> elements. Our
implementation
> (COleControl ActiveX) is passed in corrupted data when both
the data
> attribute is specified on the <object> tag and when
<PARAM> elements are
> also specified.
>
> According to Microsoft, HTML 4 doesn t state that an
implementation (of
> HTML) has to pass all values ( data attribute, <PARAM>s)
simultaneously
> to the ActiveX. Either data without <PARAM> is used; or
<PARAM>s without
> the data attribute is used.
>
> Which means that WebCGM s example (shown below) doesn t work
with a
> standard ActiveX implementation:
> <script type="application/ecmascript">
<![CDATA[
> function myHandler(evt)
> {
> // performs DOM manipulation calls...
> }
> ]]>
> </script>
> [...]
> <object data=""xxx.cgm""
type="image/cgm;Version=4;ProfileId=WebCGM"
> width="200" height="100">
> <param name="onload"
value="myHandler(evt);"/>
> </object>
>
> Are other Windows vendors aware of this? Do other vendors use
> DoPropExchange to get the <PARAM>s?
>
We are somewhat aware of problem in using "DATA" to get the cgm file
stream.
We are still using DoPropExchange to get cgm file via PARAM and SRC keyword.
> There is possibly a workaround that can be implemented in
ActiveX
> implementation (not tested yet), but that being said, maybe we
want to put
> some thoughts in how to use the OBJECT tag in a properly
supported IE way.
>
> Regards,
> Benoit
>
Regards,
Don Larson
Larson Software Technology
Tel: (713)977.4177 ext. 102
www.cgmlarson.com