W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > May 2006

Re: Compound Document Format Framework and WICD Profile 1st Public Draft Comments

From: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 13:24:10 -0400
To: ot@w3.org
Cc: public-cdf@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA6E04096.9BCD671A-ON8525717A.005B73FE-8525717A.005F6D7A@us.ibm.com>

Olivier,

We appreciate the comments that you have given, we have processed them 
some time ago.  Included are descriptions of what actions were taken 
regarding each comment.  The most recent editor's drafts can be found at:

Compound Documents by Reference Framework 1.0 
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/cdf.xhtml
WICD Core 1.0 
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/wicd.xhtml
WICD Full 1.0 Profile 
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/wicd-full.xhtml
WICD Mobile 1.0 Profile 
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/wicd-mobile.xhtml

> General Comments - 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0016.html 
We have discussed organization and have resolved to have 4 specifications 
as listed above.

> Specification naming - 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0017.html 
We have taken your comments into consideration, see the 4 specifications 
(and their naming) above regarding actual outcome.

> Scope of the framework - 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0018.html 
We have rewritten the scope sections taking these comments into 
consideration, see 
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/cdf.xhtml#scope

> Conformance section - 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0019.html 
We have rewritten the conformance sections taking your comments and 
reviewing the qa-framework spec, see the new conformance sections at 
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/cdf.xhtml#conformance

> Normative versus informative - 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0020.html 
We have updated and verified that normative/informative sections are 
properly and consistently indicated, see editor's draft.

> Give (even) more definitions, or references to definitions - 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0021.html 
We have provided more definitions and updates our references to other 
specifications, per comments like this one, see editor's draft.

> Split the specification - 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0022.html 
Split done, see 4 specifications above.

> Define ?compound document? earlier - 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0023.html 
The abstract, scope and introduction have been updated to reflect this 
(and other) concerns, see latest editor's draft.

> Typos - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0024.html 

Thanks for pointing these out, they have been taken care of.  See latest 
editor's draft.

> Definition of ?root document? - 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0025.html
As these specifications only deal with the "by reference" case, 
definitions were omitted.  There are "by inclusion" definitions within the 
latest Use Case and Requirements public draft 
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/Group/specs/CDI/usecases/2.0/cdf-use-cases-reqs.xml#terms


Let us know within two weeks if these do not satisfy your comments.

Regards,
Steve Speicher on behalf of the CDF WG

ACTION-234, LC#9, LC#10, LC#11, LC#12, LC#14, LC#15, LC#16, LC#17
Received on Friday, 26 May 2006 17:22:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:41 GMT