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

Re: [LC Review] of WebCGM 2.0

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 15:17:44 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20060707150739.0398aec0@localhost>
To: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>,public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

Thanks, Thierry, for your initial efforts here.

I have a question about how we will manage a comments-email that contains 
multiple comments.  Felix's email contains three comments, for example.  In 
this case, he labels them all as editorial.

In general, do we want to treat each email as one issue, e.g., as you have 
labelled them collectively "Issue 1" in the draft DoC document 
(below)?  Or, do we want to use the Tracker Web interface to generate 
separate issues, which each one points to the common archived comment 
message as the source, and which perhaps have some embedded copy-paste or 
paraphrasing of the issue?

My instinct is that we want to separate potentially significant issues, 
each into its own Tracker issue.  Perhaps for multiple simple or editorial 
issues, we can have a single multi-part issue derived from the commentor's 
collective email message.

Thoughts, anyone?

-Lofton.

At 04:55 PM 7/7/2006 +0200, Thierry MICHEL wrote:

>WEB CGM WG Colleagues
>
>Here is our first Last Call comment on WEbCGM 2.0.
>It is incorporated into the Disposition of comments document for WebCGM
>2.0 Last Call.
>http://www.w3.org/2006/07/03/WebCGM2-LastCallResponses.html
>
>Note that this Disposition of Comment is currently a Member restricted
>document and an editor's copy.
>
>I will be tracking comments as they come in.
>
>Thierry.
>
>
>
>Felix Sasaki wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > These are comments on
> >
> > WebCGM 2.0, http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/
> >
> > sent on behalf of the i18n core working group.
> >
> > Best regards, Felix Sasaki.
> >
> > Comment 1 (editorial): <title> elements in some files are confusing
> > It seems that some <title> elements contain "OASIS CGM Open
> > specification - ...", e.g.
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/WebCGM20-TOC.html
> > "OASIS CGM Open specification - WebCGM Profile - Expanded Table of 
> Contents"
> > This is just confusing and should be fixed.
> >
> > Comment 2 (editorial): Reference to Unicode
> > In
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/WebCGM20-Intro.html#norm-ref
> >  , you have two references to Unicode, one generic reference, and one to
> > version 4.01. Is there a reason for that? If not, please reference to
> > Unicode following the description at
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-RefUnicode , that is, only in a
> > generic manner.
> >
> > Comment 3 (editorial): Why not Unicode as the default encoding?
> > In
> > 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/WebCGM20-Concepts.html#webcgm_2_4
> > , (sec. 2.5.4), you describe isolatin1 as the default "character set".
> > We would propose to describe UTF-8 as the default character encoding,
> > and to use the term "character encoding" instead of "character set". See
> > also http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#C020 .
>
>
>--
>Thierry Michel
>W3C
Received on Friday, 7 July 2006 21:17:55 GMT

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