W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > December 2006

RE: FW: Chapter 7.3.2 in S1000D Issue 2.3

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:21:07 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20061222111121.02f25250@localhost>
To: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>, "Thierry Michel" <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>


At 07:03 AM 12/22/2006 -0800, Cruikshank, David W wrote:

>Thierry,
>
>Let me confirm...
>
>Are  you saying that I can use
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/Group/2006/REC-webcgm20-20070115/ in
>S1000D 2.3 and the ATA iSpec 2200 with some certainty??

Whoa!

1.) That's a member-only URI -- requires W3C member login.

2.) Secondly, it is potentially volatile.  Unlike an address in /TR/, it is 
not guaranteed to remain unchanged forever.  It is under CVS control, but 
the de-referenced version at that address may change.

What about using the "Latest Version" URI in /TR/:
http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm20/  ?

Right now, it de-references to the Proposed Rec.  When Rec happens in 
January, it will de-reference to REC WebCGM 2.0.  If there is ever an 
errata release of 2.0, it would then de-reference to that.  There are 
arguments both ways, about whether to de-reference to "latest version" or a 
dated version, although the latter is considered by some to be more orderly 
from a conformance perspective.

Alternately, you could point to the OASIS /CS2/ version.  That is 
guaranteed by OASIS process to be identical to the OS version except for 
cover page status.  Or ... you could point to the anticipated OS address (I 
can tell you what I think it will be, and/or negotiate it with Mary) -- 
that address is not date-sensitive, only "status sensitive" (it will 
reflect OS instead of CS2).  We know now that we have exceeded 15% and OS 
should be assured.

-Lofton.

>  I'm getting
>pressure to get the link into the text.  Keeping in mind that the actual
>specs won't be published until end of February in the case of S1000D and
>later for iSpec 2200.
>
>Thx....Dave
>
>
>Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
>Boeing Commercial Airplane
>206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734
>david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thierry Michel [mailto:tmichel@w3.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:03 AM
>To: Cruikshank, David W
>Cc: lofton@rockynet.com; WebCGM WG
>Subject: Re: FW: Chapter 7.3.2 in S1000D Issue 2.3
>
>
>I had installed a draft version of of REC here
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/Group/2006/REC-webcgm20-20070115/
>
>The changes I have done in the version only apply to the cover page.
>Lofton needs to adds some update I believe (appendix D1, etc.).
>
>The stable URL of the final Spec, I do not know it, it will be based on
>the date of publication.
>
>   If you need to introduce something into the sopec -  S1000D Issue 2.3
>, you should do it at the above URL and keep Lofton informed of you
>edits to track these in our "changes appendix".
>
>Thx,
>Thierry.
>
>
>
>
>Cruikshank, David W wrote:
> >
> > Any chance we would know the stable url of WebCGM 2.0 prior to actual
> > publishing?  We are in a position where we need to insert something
> > into S1000D Issue 2.3.
> >
> > Thx....Dave Cruikshank
> >
> > Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange Boeing Commercial
>
> > Airplane 206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734 david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zimmermann, Peter E. [mailto:Peter.E.Zimmermann@eads.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 6:19 AM
> > To: Cruikshank, David W
> > Subject: RE: Chapter 7.3.2 in S1000D Issue 2.3
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > Is there a chance to push at least the W3C guys a bit?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Peter.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cruikshank, David W [mailto:david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:37 PM
> > To: Zimmermann, Peter E.
> > Subject: RE: Chapter 7.3.2 in S1000D Issue 2.3
> >
> > Thanks Peter,
> >
> > WebCGM 2.0 as cleared the PR stage in W3C.  I think right after the
> > 1st of the year it will be published as REC.
> >
> > The OASIS balloting for WebCGM OS runs from Dec 16th through the end
> > of Dec.
> >
> > Thx...Dave
> >
> >
> > Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange Boeing Commercial
>
> > Airplane 206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734 david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zimmermann, Peter E. [mailto:Peter.E.Zimmermann@eads.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:46 AM
> > To: Cruikshank, David W
> > Subject: RE: Chapter 7.3.2 in S1000D Issue 2.3
> >
> > Thanks Dave.
> >
> > I will update Chap 7.3.2 in accordance with your comments.
> > When do you think WebCGM 2.0 will become a W3C REC?
> >
> > Outstanding also (I believe): Valid S1000D XML Schema for companion
> > files.
> > Will you provide a final valid version to Nico and me? When?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Peter.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cruikshank, David W [mailto:david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:34 PM
> > To: Zimmermann, Peter E.
> > Subject: RE: Chapter 7.3.2 in S1000D Issue 2.3
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > Denis has good points here...I'll address them her and then go into
> > the forum site and proposd editing for the chapter.
> >
> > 1) is the use of the XCF a project decision or mandatory?
> >
> >       I think it's a project decision
> >
> > 2) are the mapping rules (eg Table 5, XCF mapping of element
> > <hotspot>) project decisions (each rule) or mandatory?
> >
> >       Project decision
> >
> > 3) Be careful,
> > <!ATTLIST webcgm
> >    ...
> >    pictureVisibility (on | off) "on" #IMPLIED
> >    ...
> >  >
> > is not valid (several occurrences of such constructions) XML DTD
> > construct
> >
> >       Agreed, this is something that you and I edited into the chapter
>
> > without really thinking about it.  The WebCGM 2.0 spec has the correct
>
> > initial values and behaviors for all of these defined.  They shouldn't
>
> > be here, nor in the XCF DTD.
> >
> > 4) Please also check that 2 attributes of type ID on the same element
> > is allowed by XML or by the Schemas (if i remember correctly it is not
>
> > valid in pure SGML).
> >
> >       Agreed.  The S1000D:id should be CDATA.
> >
> > Thx....Dave Cruikshank
> >
> > Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange Boeing Commercial
>
> > Airplane 206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734 david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zimmermann, Peter E. [mailto:Peter.E.Zimmermann@eads.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:51 PM
> > To: Cruikshank, David W
> > Subject: WG: Chapter 7.3.2 in S1000D Issue 2.3
> >
> > Dave, would you please give us some answers. Thanks, Peter.
> > Regards,
> > Peter Zimmermann
> > Expert ILS Process Standards
> >
> > EADS
> > Military Air Systems
> > Technical Publications - PSCG2
> > 81663 Munich - Germany
> > Phone: +49 (0) 89.6 07-2 17 38
> > Fax: +49 (0) 89.607-2 18 75
> > Mobile: +49 (0) 151.16 86 35 14
> > E-mail: Peter.E.Zimmermann@eads.com
> >
> > NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, may contain
> > privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this
> > e-mail in error or are not an intended recipient, you may not use,
> > reproduce, disseminate or distribute it; do not open nor save any
> > attachments, delete it immediately from your system and notify the
> > sender promptly by e-mail that you have done so. Thank you.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Excoffier, Denis
> > To: Zimmermann, Peter E.
> > CC: Excoffier, Denis; Deschamp, Bernard
> > Sent: Wed Dec 06 18:04:19 2006
> > Subject: Chapter 7.3.2 in S1000D Issue 2.3
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I had a look into your chapter 7.3.2 Issue 003 Inwork 53 and now, a
> > few
> > questions/remarks:
> >
> >
> > 1) is the use of the XCF a project decision or mandatory?
> >
> > 2) are the mapping rules (eg Table 5, XCF mapping of element
> > <hotspot>) project decisions (each rule) or mandatory?
> >
> > 3) Be careful,
> > <!ATTLIST webcgm
> >    ...
> >    pictureVisibility (on | off) "on" #IMPLIED
> >    ...
> >  >
> > is not valid (several occurrences of such constructions) XML DTD
> > construct
> >
> > 4) Please also check that 2 attributes of type ID on the same element
> > is allowed by XML or by the Schemas (if i remember correctly it is not
>
> > valid in pure SGML).
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > Denis Excoffier.
Received on Friday, 22 December 2006 18:21:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:09 GMT