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

Re[2]: Fwd: Re: [LC Review] of WebCGM 2.0

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:39:27 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20060710151539.030cce40@localhost>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

At 01:29 PM 7/10/2006 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>Monday, July 10, 2006, 12:40:41 PM, Chris Lilley wrote:
>
> > On Monday, July 10, 2006, 4:14:13 PM, Benoit wrote:
>
>[...]
>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.
>Right, I think Lofton has some ideas about this. Note that we can
>change the WebCGM 2.0 wording, but not the PPF.

In case it's not clear what Benoit meant by the last comment... the PPF 
(chapter 6) contains a row for each CGM element.  There are CGM elements 
named CHARACTER SET LIST [1], CHARACTER SET INDEX, etc.  Obviously we can't 
change the name of the ISO CGM element, even if it is improper usage.  We 
can, however, improve the descriptive prose.

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/WebCGM20-Profile.html#webcgm_4_5_T_16_14

There is no doubt that "character set", used in CGM for 20 years and WebCGM 
for 7 years, is at odds with the correct usage as defined in CharMod.  My 
"some ideas" are along these lines, for improving the prose and easing the 
discontinuity with WebCGM 1.0 and CGM:1999 (:1992, :1987):

1.) either change "character set" to "character encoding" in the 
descriptive prose, and hyperlink every occurrence to an informative note 
that explains the incorrect legacy usage ("character set") of previous 
versions, and points to the appropriate CharMod section.

2.) or leave "character set" in the prose and hyperlink each occurrence to 
a similar informative note.

I expect that I18N will like #1 the best.  Since the PPF is based on the 
Model Profile of CGM:1999, a hybrid approach might be sensible -- #1 for 
prose outside of the PPF cells, #2 for prose within the PPF cells (leaving 
ISO CGM element names alone altogether).

-Lofton.


> >   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 .
>
>--
>Regards,
>  Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com
>
>This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected
>by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware
>that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or
>any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
>error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and
>delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Received on Monday, 10 July 2006 22:27:35 GMT

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