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

Re: [LC Review] of WebCGM 2.0

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:05:35 +0200
Message-ID: <44AEE8BF.9050102@w3.org>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
CC: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

Lofton Henderson wrote:

comments-email that contains multiple comments.

We can use our own issue tracker for each sub comments, if you think to 
have an atomic view.

But we should answer the requester a single mail with all responses to 
each comments. It will definitively ease the tracking of response and 
agreement from requester.

> 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
> 
> 


-- 
Thierry Michel
W3C
Received on Friday, 7 July 2006 23:06:01 GMT

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