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

Re: proposed replies to i18n-core comments

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:49:56 +0200
Message-ID: <44BDF234.6060404@w3.org>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
CC: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

Lofton,

If we agree to these comments during tomorrow's teleconf (I will 
attend), I will update the "WebCGM 2.0 Last Call Disposition of 
comments" document
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/03/WebCGM2-LastCallResponses.html

and will send a mail to issuer Felix Sasaki
<fsasaki@w3.org> copying I18N and public-webcgm@w3.org lists.




> 
> 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.

The References/ The 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.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Thierry Michel
W3C
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2006 08:50:13 GMT

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