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 5: ISOLatin1

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:43:04 -0000
To: <public-webcgm@w3.org>
Cc: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00f001c97119$4e274f90$ea75eeb0$@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 16:03
> To: Richard Ishida
> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org; public-webcgm@w3.org
> Subject: Response to WebCGM 2.1 Last Call comment:i18n comment 5:
> ISOLatin1
> 
> 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 10:28:54 +0000
> * Archived:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2008Nov/0004.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 5
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0811-webcgm/
> Editorial/substantive: E/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:
> 
> "These normalization rules are applicable for font names specified using
> the characters of ISOLatin1. They will likely be inapplicable for font
> names specified using other non-Latin characters."
> 
> What happens in the case of Latin-2 (Eastern Europe), which is similar
> to Latin1 but contains a few additional characters. Does a single
> non-Latin1 character cause normalization to be abandoned for the whole
> string?
> 
> It seems like the only thing that wouldn't apply to all non-Latin1 font
> names is converting to lower-case, though that is still a relevant
> consideration for many other Latin characters outside Latin1, and for
> Armenian, Greek and Cyrillic. Why restrict to Latin1?
> 
> 
> RESPONSE to your comment:
> 
> 
> The apparent restriction to Latin 1 was unintended. As you point out,
> the normalization would work the same if the same names were expressed
> in Latin 2. Latin 1 got the special mention because: 1.) the default
> character encoding of WebCGM is ISO 8859-1; and, 2.) the vast majority
> of current and legacy WebCGM instances use this character encoding and a
> restricted core set of thirteen specific font names. As pointed out in
> WebCGM's reply to I18N's issue #3, these WebCGM-specific normalization
> rules were targeted at the substantial volume of legacy and current
> metafiles that intend to invoke this restricted core set of fonts, but
> that contain well-known, trivial deviations in the construction of the
> names. In other words, the real target is trivially deviant usage of the
> 13 specific core-font names, regardless of the character encoding. (More
> background: the valid character encoding for any particular WebCGM
> instance is one of the three ISO 8859-1, unicode UTF-8, or unicode
UTF-16.)
> 
> WebCGM will reword to clarify the useful scope of these normalization
> rules, to remove the implication of a normative restriction of
> applicability, and instead to be advisory about the usefulness of that
> normalization outside of its primary intended scope. Replace the two
> quoted sentences in question (in the 9.3.2.2 description of 'cgmFont')
with:
> 
> "Note: These normalization rules are derived from and intended for the
> substantial volume of existing metafiles that aim to invoke fonts from
> WebCGM's restricted core set of thirteen specific fonts (see T.16.13 of
> @@section 6.5@@) and that contain well-known and trivial deviations in
> the construction of those font names. The rules may be less useful
> outside of that intended scope. The target metafiles of these
> normalizations are most often, but not always, encoded in WebCGM's
> default character encoding of ISO 8859-1."
> 
> [Ed-note: @@section 6.5@@ denotes text "section 6.5" that links to
> "WebCGM21-Profile.html#webcgm_4_5", which in the LCWD version is:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-
> Profile.html#webcgm_4_5
> ]
> 
> 
> --------------------------- end -------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 22:43:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 January 2009 22:43:16 GMT