- From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:06:42 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- CC: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Lofton, FYI Chris is on vacation this week. The W3C Europe Office is closed next Monday, tuesday and wednesday Nov 1st. I am not sure Chris does access his email. I will contact Chris on Thursday to remind him to attend the WebCGM telecon on Nov 2nd, to nail down this issue. TM Henderson wrote: > Follow-up to today's telecon discussion, and a proposed new wording. > > If you disagree with anything in here, PLEASE OBJECT NOW -- I believe > that I'm summarizing what was apparently unanimous agreement in the telecon. > > OVERVIEW: > > Okay, Benoit explains below why he doesn't like how the paragraph works > (or doesn't) with the Chris's simple deletion of the beginning of the > last sentence. We agreed that his objection has some merit -- the > paragraph starts to unravel and introduce more ambiguity. > > On the other hand, I objected to Benoit's solution, because it starts to > hint at revised conformance requirements, which crosses the line into > substantive (we all agree -- no substantive changes). > > In the telecon, we had consensus about this: > > *** the basic intent of this wording (in the _replace paragraph) from > WebCGM 1.0 is that WebCGM viewers MUST handle CGM-to-CGM links with > _replace as described. > > *** WebCGM 2.0 does not intend to expand the "MUST" conformance > requirement to any other target formats. > > So I will make a proposal that I claim embodies the intended > interpretation of the existing _replace text, and is editorial because > it does not alter the conformance requirements that we agree are > intended by the present wording. > > PROPOSAL: > > [[[ > > _replace > When _replace occurs on a CGM-to-CGM link, a WebCGM viewer shall > replace the current CGM picture by the designated CGM picture in the > same rectangular area in the same frame as the picture which refers > to this target. If the ending resource (CGM) is the same as the > linking resource, the viewer shall not reload the resource. This is > the default behavior for such links. > > ]]] > > I don't claim it is a perfect solution, but I do claim that it is: 1.) > a minimally disruptive change that also... 2.) removes the offensive > (to Chris) implication that _replace concept is unique to WebCGM; and, > 3.) does not change the conformance requirements of the current text. > > Objections? > > PROCESS & TIMING: > > We also agreed today, that we want one of two outcomes going forward, in > this order of preference: > > a.) either we get consensus on a change that is unanimously agreed to be > editorial, to satisfy Chris's comment, by 6th November (when lock-down > is anticipated on OASIS spec); > > b.) otherwise our WG response should be "no change for now", and we will > postpone addressing the comment till after REC (in errata phase), or > future versions. (As Benoit observed, this is still a pretty active > topic elsewhere in W3C.) > > Agreed? > > Regards, > -Lofton. > > > At 10:58 AM 10/26/2006 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote: > >> I don't really like the sentence: "This is the default behavior for >> such links." >> >> What does _such links_ refer to? It's confusing. >> >> What not say something like: >> "This is the default behavior for CGM-to-CGM links." >> >> It doesn't prevent CGM-to-SVG links (or vice versa), if such >> implementation exists. >> >> Also, I find the first sentence _very_ confusing: "The viewer shall >> replace the current CGM picture by the designated CGM picture same >> rectangular area in the same frame as the picture which refers to this >> target." >> >> I think only a handful of people can understand that sentence; maybe >> I'm stupid. >> >> Is that what is meant: "The viewer shall replace in the same >> frame and same rectangular area of current CGM picture by the >> linked content." (This is easier for me to understand). >> >> I agree that all of this is editorial, all intentions remain the same. >> >> Benoit. >> >> >> Tuesday, October 24, 2006, 7:15:19 PM, Lofton Henderson wrote: >> >> > [...changing list to the WG list, for discussion...] >> >> > This topic will be on the telecon agenda for Thursday. Please feel >> free to >> > discuss on this list in advance. >> >> > Chris notes that the last sentence of WebCGM's discussion of the >> "_replace" >> > picture behavior ignores that SVG also supports this value. His >> suggested >> > solution is to delete the first part of the last sentence, which >> would leave... >> >> > [[[ >> > _replace >> > The viewer shall replace the current CGM picture by the designated CGM >> > picture same rectangular area in the same frame as the picture >> > which refers to this target. If the ending resource (CGM) is the same as >> > the linking resource, the viewer does not reload the resource. This >> is the >> > default behavior for such links. >> > ]]] >> >> > On the one hand, I agree with Chris that it is editorially >> inaccurate (or >> > ambiguous) as worded. The word "applicable" is the problem, IMO. >> As Chris >> > interpreted it, in the broadest sense, indeed "_replace" is also >> applicable >> > to C2S and S2C links (and S2S), not just C2C links. On the other >> hand, one >> > could claim that we were thinking of "applicable" from the >> perspective of >> > required (conformance) capabilities of WebCGM 2.0 viewers, and therefore >> > its use could be defensible from that perspective. >> >> > My opinion, bottom line -- the imprecision of the word argues for the >> > removal of that phrase. I would also venture that we did not intend to >> > *mandate* WebCGM 2.0 viewer support of anything other than C2C >> links, i.e., >> > the mandatory WebCGM 2.0 viewer capability is unchanged from WebCGM >> > 1.0. So whatever change we make should not imply any changed >> conformance >> > requirements. >> >> > So ... thoughts? Does Chris's proposed change satisfy everyone? And >> > equally importantly, is everyone satisfied that it is editorial? >> (Anything >> > other than editorial is awkward / inadmissible, at PR stage!) >> >> > -Lofton. >> >> > At 04:38 PM 10/20/2006 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote: >> >> >>Hello public-webcgm, >> >> >> >>In picture behaviours: >> >> >> >>http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PR-webcgm20-20061017/WebCGM20-IC.html#webcgm_3_1_2_2 >> >> >> >>_replace >> >> The viewer shall replace the current CGM picture by the designated >> >> CGM picture same rectangular area in the same frame as the picture >> >> which refers to this target. If the ending resource (CGM) is the >> >> same as the linking resource, the viewer does not reload the >> >> resource. Applicable only to CGM-to-CGM links, this is the default >> >> behavior for such links. >> >> >> >>The last sentence is incorrect; since SVG also has an _replace value, >> >>then this value will apply to WebCGM-to-SVG links (and the corresponding >> >>value in SVG will apply to SVG-to-WebCGM links). >> >> >> >>Suggested change: >> >> >> >>s/Applicable only to CGM-to-CGM links, this/This/ >> >> >> >>I believe that this is an editorial change and that this error is due to >> >>an oversight. In WebCGM 1,0, it was true that HTML did not have the >> >>value and thus WebCGM 1.0 was the only spec that had it. This has not >> >>been true since SVG 1.0 added the same value as WebCGM has. >> >> >> >>-- >> >> 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 Friday, 27 October 2006 10:06:59 UTC