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

Re: proposed replies to i18n-core comments

From: Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:57:01 -0400
Message-ID: <965894010.20060719095701@itedo.com>
To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

I'm ok with the proposals.

 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

Tuesday, July 18, 2006, 1:30:40 PM, Lofton Henderson wrote:

> 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:
>>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.
>>"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
>>  , 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?
>>, (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 Wednesday, 19 July 2006 13:57:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:38 UTC