Message-ID: <44AE75DF.5010509@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 16:55:27 +0200
From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
References: <44AE670F.8040706@w3.org>
In-Reply-To: <44AE670F.8040706@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of tmichel@w3.org designates 138.96.64.20 as permitted sender)
Subject: Re: [LC Review] of WebCGM 2.0
Resent-From: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
Sender: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
Resent-Message-Id: <E1FyrkR-0005Rj-EK@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 14:56:03 +0000
Status: U


WEB CGM WG Colleagues

Here is our first Last Call comment on WEbCGM 2.0.
It is incorporated into the Disposition of comments document for WebCGM
2.0 Last Call.
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/03/WebCGM2-LastCallResponses.html

Note that this Disposition of Comment is currently a Member restricted
document and an editor's copy.

I will be tracking comments as they come in.

Thierry.


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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 .


-- 
Thierry Michel
W3C