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

Re: Fwd: Re: [LC Review] of WebCGM 2.0

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:40:41 +0200
Message-ID: <1584200023.20060710184041@w3.org>
To: Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

On Monday, July 10, 2006, 4:14:13 PM, Benoit wrote:

BB> Here are my opinions with regards to these comments:

BB> comment 1: yes, "OASIS CGM Open ..." should be removed from <title>.

BB> comment 2: as Felix points out, we have two references to Unicode...
BB> Unicode and Unicode-401. However, I couldn't find Unicode-401 anywhere
BB> in the specification, the closest I could find was [Unicode40]
BB> in Chapter 3 (which we don't have in the reference section). One
BB> reference to Unicode should suffice, no? The generic one.

I agree - especially if the references to a specific version are not
actually used.

  C063 [S] A generic reference to the Unicode Standard MUST be made if
  it is desired that characters allocated after a specification is
  published are usable with that specification. A specific reference to
  the Unicode Standard MAY be included to ensure that functionality
  depending on a particular version is available and will not change
  over time.
  http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-RefUnicode

BB> comment 3: possibly a bit more tricky... I suspect the default is
BB> IsoLatin 1 for legacy reasons. What would be the harm in making the
BB> default UTF-8?

Is the text ever used without an explicit indication of the character
encoding?In other words, does content rely on the encoding being a
particular default?

Its certainly easier to change the default now rather than later. Also,
its off for the XML companion file to have one default encoding (UTF-8 or
UTF-16) and the WebCGM to have a different one (Latin-1).

BB>  As for 'character encoding' instead of 'character set',
BB> I suspect we kept the same wording as CGM:1999. More thoughts anyone
BB> on this one?

We should use the correct term, character encoding. Character set has a
different meaning.

  A character encoding scheme, together with the coded character sets it
  is used with, is called a character encoding, and is identified by a
  unique identifier, such as an IANA charset identifier.
  http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-Digital

BB> -- 
BB> Regards,
BB>  Benoit                            mailto:benoit@itedo.com


BB>  
BB> This is a forwarded message
BB> From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
BB> To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
BB> Date: Friday, July 7, 2006, 10:55:27 AM
BB> Subject: [LC Review] of WebCGM 2.0

BB> ===8<==============Original message text===============

BB> WEB CGM WG Colleagues

BB> Here is our first Last Call comment on WEbCGM 2.0.
BB> It is incorporated into the Disposition of comments document for WebCGM
BB> 2.0 Last Call.
BB> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/03/WebCGM2-LastCallResponses.html

BB> Note that this Disposition of Comment is currently a Member restricted
BB> document and an editor's copy.

BB> I will be tracking comments as they come in.

BB> Thierry.



BB> 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 .






-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 10 July 2006 16:40:58 GMT

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