W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > January to March 2009

RE: Response to WebCGM 2.1 Last Call comment: i18n comment 3: Different normalizations

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:42:03 -0000
To: <public-webcgm@w3.org>
Cc: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00ee01c97119$2a071c80$7e155580$@org>

Thank you.  The i18n WG is satisfied by this response.

RI

============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Michel [mailto:tmichel@w3.org]
> Sent: 19 December 2008 15:53
> To: Richard Ishida
> Cc: public-webcgm@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: Response to WebCGM 2.1 Last Call comment: i18n comment 3:
> Different normalizations
> 
> Dear Richard,
> 
> The WebCGM Working Group has reviewed the comment you sent [1] about
> the
> WebCGM 2.1 Last Call Working Draft [2] published on 02 October 2008.
> Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and send us
> comments.
> 
> The Working Group's response resolution to your comment is included
> below.
> 
> Please review it carefully and acknowledge this WebCGM WG response by
> replying to this mail and copying the WebCGM public mailing list
> <public-webcgm@w3.org>. Let us know if you agree with it or not before
> 11 Jan 2009.  If we receive no reply from you by January 11, then we
> will default your reply to "WebCGM WG response accepted."
> 
> In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
> solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group.
> 
> If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the
> opportunity to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by
> the Director during the transition of this document to the next stage in
> the W3C Recommendation Track.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> On behalf of the WebCGM Working Group,
> Thierry Michel, WebCGM WG Team Contact.
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Oct/0000.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/
> _____________________________________________________________
> * Comment Sent: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:28:28 +0000
> * Archived:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2008Nov/0003.html
> 
> The WebCGM WG has the following responses to your comment:
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> SUMMARY of your comment:
> Comment from the i18n review of:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-
> Config.html#ACI-fontmap
> 
> Comment 3
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0811-webcgm/
> Editorial/substantive: S
> Tracked by: RI
> 
> Location in reviewed document:
> 9.3.2.2
> [http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-
> Config.html#ACI-maplist]
> 
> Comment:
> 
> Why is the normalization for cgmFont different from that for
> substitutionList?
> 
> RESPONSE to your comment:
> 
> This was a deliberate choice. The 'cgmFont' normalization defines,
> before the string-match comparison is performed, how to prepare both the
> font name extracted from WebCGM instance and the parameter value of the
> 'cgmFont' attribute. The rule is based on extensive real-world usage of
> CGM and WebCGM, both current usage and legacy usage. The WebCGM
> specification itself (T.16.13 of section 6.5 [1]) has since 1999
> required a core set of fonts, or their metric equivalents, with names
> such as "Helvetica-BoldOblique". But the specifications allowed no
> trivial variations (e.g., blanks, underscore-for-hyphen, etc), other
> than "case insensitive". In reality, there is now a large legacy of
> files that conform to profiles closely related to WebCGM (e.g., ATA) but
> that have trivial difference in these names, or that are WebCGM
> instances with trivially erroneous variations on the names. The purpose
> of the 'cgmFont' normalization is to enable the application of the font
> substitution mechanism to this substantial legacy of CGM instances.
> 
> On the other hand, the 'substitutionList' attribute of the WebCGM
> specification defines the set of fonts from which a substitute is to be
> selected. This font substitution mechanism is a new feature of WebCGM,
> and so there is no legacy to consider for 'substitutionList'. The best
> design of syntax and mechanism, and one that is already used by some
> WebCGM constituents in other contexts, comes from the CSS 2.0
> specification. This was therefore closely adapted to the needs of WebCGM
> 2.1's font substitution mechanism.
> 
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-
> Profile.html#webcgm_4_5
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------- end -------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 22:42:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 January 2009 22:42:16 GMT