RE: proposed replies to i18n-core comments

I agree with the replies.

--
Stuart Galt
SGML Resource Group
stuart.a.galt@boeing.com
(206) 544-3656

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:31 AM
> To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
> Subject: proposed replies to i18n-core comments
> 
> 
> 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-Conce
> pts.html#w
> >ebcgm_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 Wednesday, 19 July 2006 14:28:41 UTC