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 16:54:30 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20061222164351.02098bf8@localhost>
To: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>, "Thierry Michel" <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

At 03:06 PM 12/22/2006 -0800, Cruikshank, David W wrote:

>Lofton,
>
>Thanks, that exactly the kind of answer I've been looking for.  I know
>pointing to the "latest version" address is a little tricky in a spec
>that is subject to contractual agreement, but I think it's all I can do
>for now.

Yes, it seems the best solution given your constraints.

On the positive side, the "Latest Version" URI *will* be the REC at the 
time of publication of S1000D (it is PR now).  Thereafter, if the spec at 
that URI is different, it will only be by incorporation of errata (e.g., 
2.0 Second Release), and that is not likely to happen for at least a year 
or two.

Future S1000D publication could point to a dated version if need be, and 
that would probably be before there is anything different at "Latest Version".

(Btw, I didn't mean to imply that every URI in /TR/ corresponds to an 
immutable document -- "Latest Version" is obviously built specifically to 
violate that.  But, by W3C process constraints, in principle it is 
considerably more stable than a similar address in /WebCGM/Group/, and it 
will always correspond to a version of REC.)

-Lofton.



>We've known this point was coming and the specs can't wait any
>longer.
>
>  Considering the email from Ian Jacobs earlier today it sounds like the
>press release won't go out until the end of January, and I can't wait
>that long.
>
>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: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:21 AM
>To: Cruikshank, David W; Thierry Michel
>Cc: WebCGM WG
>Subject: RE: FW: Chapter 7.3.2 in S1000D Issue 2.3
>
>
>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 23:54:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:10 GMT