Re: RE: NN fragment -- bad news?

[Dieter@isodraw.de (Dieter Weidenbrueck)]

All,

I agree with Greg here. However, we still need to be able to insert a simple
HREF pointing to an object inside a WebCGM file into HTML. To load a file
explicitely as described by Greg you would always need a javascript.

Dieter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>
To: <cgmopen-members@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: <gcg@micrografx.com>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 9:00 PM
Subject: Fwd: RE: NN fragment -- bad news?


> CGM Open Members,
>
> Greg's reply reinforces my evidence that NN 4.73 (as well as 6.0) indeed
> has the fragment handling bug.
>
> His suggestions are interesting as well.  Comments?
>
> Regards,
> Lofton.
>
> >From: Greg Gallant <gcg@micrografx.com>
> >To: "'Lofton Henderson'" <lofton@rockynet.com>
> >Subject: RE: NN fragment -- bad news?
> >Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:10:03 -0600
> >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
> >X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@rockynet.com>
> >
> >[...] In our initial testing with NN, we found
> >irregularities with the fragment.  I'm told these irregularities persist
> >through version 6.  [...]  We have not developed a workaround for NN.
> >
> >One thing you all might consider is standardizing upon direct interfaces
> >that WebCGM plugins support in a standardized way -- this would be via
> >ActiveX for IE and via LiveConnect for Netscape.  If you have standard
ways
> >to "talk" to all plugins you remove yourself from being at the mercy of
the
> >browser developers who are always likely to break behavior in the next
> >version.  Further, loading a page directly into a plugin is far more
> >efficient then having the browser get a page, determine the mime type
from
> >the HTTP header, then hand the URI over to the plugin for the page to be
> >retrieved again.  All those socket opens and closes are expensive.
> >
> >-gcg
>