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

proposed replies to i18n-core comments

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:30:40 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20060717164949.0234f7b0@rockynet.com>
To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

WebCGM WG --

Here are draft replies to the three i18n-core comments.

Comments and suggestions are welcome...

At 10:52 PM 7/7/2006 +0900, 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.

PROPOSAL for Comment 1:
Agreed, we will fix it.  Thanks for catching this.  The <title> elements 
should match the text that immediately precedes the horizontal rule at the 
top of each chapter.

>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.

PROPOSAL for Comment 2:
Originally we had considered that both generic and specific were 
appropriate, as described in CharMod C063 [1] (and its immediately 
preceding comment).  Upon further discussion, the WebCGM WG believes that 
generic alone suffices.  The References will be changed to contain only the 
generic reference.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#C063

>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 .

PROPOSAL for Comment 3:
The basic reason is "legacy".  WebCGM 2.0 is an upgrade of WebCGM 1.0, 
which is a profile of ISO CGM:1999.  In ISO CGM:1999 (and :1992, :1987 
before it), the default is isolatin1.  Because the default is implicit 
(nothing in the CGM file declares it), and because of the mechanism which 
ISO CGM specifies for changing to a non-default character encoding for a 
metafile instance, in fact it would be technically ill-specified (i.e., 
unimplementable) for a profile such as WebCGM 2.0 to prescribe that the 
implicit default is other than isolatin1.

We agree that WebCGM 2.0 should use the proper terminology, "character 
encoding", where ever possible.  In some places it is not possible, such as 
the proper names of ISO CGM:1999 elements (e.g., "CHARACTER SET 
LIST").  But we will make appropriate changes in the descriptive, prose 
parts of the profile.


-Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 18 July 2006 18:01:56 GMT

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