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

Re: proposed replies to i18n-core comments

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 07:50:52 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20060719074829.04a6a4a0@localhost>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

At 11:37 AM 7/19/2006 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 19, 2006, 10:49:56 AM, Thierry wrote:
>
>TM> Lofton,
>
>TM> If we agree to these comments during tomorrow's teleconf (I will
>TM> attend), I will update the "WebCGM 2.0 Last Call Disposition of
>TM> comments" document
>TM> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/03/WebCGM2-LastCallResponses.html
>
>I think its worth making them three separate comments, too, rather than 
>one comment with three parts.
>
>Lofton,are you going to be on this Fridays Hypertext CG call?it would be 
>good to remind other groups of the last call and the deadline,and try to 
>get them to respond (or to say they won't review,or have no comments).

Unfortunately, I will be on an airplane at the time.  Takeoff 1/2 hour 
before HCG telecon, landing well after the telecon.

Can you possibly do this for us, in my absence?

-Lofton.


>TM> and will send a mail to issuer Felix Sasaki
>TM> <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.
>
>TM> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>  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 Wednesday, 19 July 2006 13:51:15 GMT

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