W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > August 2007

Comments on the 1.0 errata scan

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:06:35 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20070816145742.01622960@localhost>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Hi WebCGM WG,

I got the following public (non-member) comments about my collection of 
proposed 1.0 errata [1].

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Aug/0001.html

I plan to go through and give my thoughts on these in a subsequent message, 
but let me make one immediate comment, about his first paragraph...

Rob was curious and I explained the logic of why 2.0 did not "supersede and 
replace" 1.0.  To remind you, it was because 2.0 did not pay attention to 
the question until too late, so 2.0 failed to preserve 1.0 as a valid 
conformance level, therefore in some formal sense 1.0 would have ceased to 
exist as a valid conformance target.  (Unlike CGM, where each Version 
1,2,3,4 defined all of the lower versions.)

More later,
-Lofton.



>From: Robert Orosz <roboro@auto-trol.com>
>To: 'Lofton Henderson' <lofton@rockynet.com>
>Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Fwd: results of 1.0 errata scan
>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:37:45 -0600
>[...]
>Lofton,
>
>Thanks for explanation about keeping WebCGM 1.0 around.  It's a very
>subtle point IMO, but it does make sense.
>
>I have a couple of comments regarding the errata.  First, an error on the
>W3C errata page itself.  Near the top right after "This document records
>known errors ..." it says "Latest WebCGM 2.0 version:"
>
>Shouldn't that be "Latest WebCGM 1.0 version:"?
>
>I'm curious about E03.  Is the erratum simply due to the lack of an example?
>Or is there more to it than that?
>
>Regarding Item #2 in your errata scan, I'm not convinced that the authors of
>the model profile meant to say "128 graphical primitive elements."  The
>rest of the standard and model profile are very consistent about using the
>state tables (Tables 8a and 8b) to specify the content rules for "aggregate"
>structures, and the Model Profile simply limits the number of eligible
>elements
>in each structure.  For example, compare with T.15.6 and T.15.7.
>
>WebCGM is of course free to change the model profile spec for figures.  The
>issue of course is how to word it.  If the statement is changed on the
>WebCGM
>side to "128 graphical primitive elements", that might be interpreted to
>mean
>that attribute elements aren't allowed at all in a closed figure.  Is that
>what is intended?  An alternative solution would be to increase the number
>to 1024 (which aligns it with 2.0) and leave it at that.
>
>Regarding Item #4, that clearly is an error in the Model Profile.  The fact
>that the Model Profile column does have a Prohibited check box means that
>profiles are allowed to prohibit the Application Data element.  So, the
>statement immediately below the check boxes makes no sense.
>
>Items 2 and 4 reminded me that one of the big reasons for WebCGM 1.0, 2nd
>release, was to align with the 2nd edition (1999) of the CGM standard.  One
>of my WebCGM 2.0 review assignments was chapter 6.  When I reviewed it, I
>quickly discovered that it was not based on the 2nd edition of the CGM
>standard, but instead the original amendment to the 1st edition of the CGM
>standard.  I assume that the WebCGM 1.0 2nd Release text was the starting
>point for WebCGM 2.0, so this issue probably affects WebCGM 1.0.  Here's the
>link to my email to jog your memory.
>
>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200509/msg00136.html
>
>A lot of other early WebCGM 2.0 review comments probably apply to 1.0 as
>well.
>Since I was assuming that WebCGM 2.0 would replace 1.0, I wasn't really
>paying
>attention to the impact on WebCGM 1.0 of issues raised.  I might be worth
>going back and looking at my (and others) review comments on WebCGM 2.0
>drafts
>to see if there are any comments that are relevant to WebCGM 1.0.  It
>wouldn't
>surprise me if there are some.
>
>Another WebCGM 2.0 issue that I am aware of that probably affects 1.0 came
>up
>during the end of preparing the test suite.  One of the tests in the static
>portion of the test suite involved six degenerate elliptical arcs.  One of
>them was an elliptical arc close element.  The reference PNG had the radius
>drawn from the center point to the first CDP end point.  Somebody, (Don or
>Forrest I think) objected, and after some discussion we all agreed that it
>makes the most sense to draw the radius from the center point along the
>degenerate start/end ray.  However, D.4.5.12 in the CGM standard simply says
>"... a radius should also be drawn ..." without specifying any more detail
>about the direction of the radius.  This is probably best handled by a
>defect
>report to SC24.  Since this was a static test, I'm assuming it was lifted
>from the WebCGM 1.0 test suite, and therefore this applies to WebCGM 1.0.
>I'm also assuming that the newer W3C process rules will apply to WebCGM 1.0
>3rd Release, and the test suite will be more prominent than it was
>previously.
>
>That's all that I can think of for now.
>
>Regards,
>
>Rob
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 6:17 PM
>To: Robert Orosz
>Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Fwd: results of 1.0 errata scan
>
>
>At 05:56 PM 8/7/2007 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
> >Lofton,
> >
> >I'll be happy to take a look.  I am curious about one thing though.  When I
> >was a member of the TC I assumed (although I guess it was never explicitly
> >stated) that WebCGM 2.0 would supersede WebCGM 1.0.  Judging from this
> >email, I conclude that my assumption was incorrect.  Are there any
> >particular reasons for maintaining 1.0?  It seems like an added burden on
> >the TC.
>
>It was a topic discussed in the W3C WG.  Whether or not this was a valid
>and realistic concern ... 2.0 was not defined in such a way that it
>incorporated and identified the 1.0 level.  In almost all cases
>(notwithstanding a handful of deprecations) 1.0 was a proper subset, so
>that conforming 1.0 was conforming 2.0.
>
>But by not identifying 1.0 as a conformance level (such as CGM:1999 did do
>with Version 1,2,3,4), then a conforming WebCGM implementation could only
>be 2.0 ... if 2.0 "supercedes and replaces" 1.0, that is.
>
>By the time the question came up in W3C, it was too late to fix it (by
>identifying the 1.0 conformance level within 2.0).
>
>Does that make sense?
>
>Btw, after this slug of 1.0 errata, which have been accumulating for 5
>years, I do not anticipate doing further maintenance (except possibly a PER
>republication with the 10 or so errata rolled in -- "Third Release".)
>
>
> >I think if we rejoin CGM Open it will not take effect until October 1st
>(the
> >start of our fiscal year).  Budgets for the new fiscal year are typically
> >prepared starting in the middle of August or so.  I think that is why I got
> >the answer (we'll look at this sometime in August) that I did when I asked
> >about this earlier this summer.
>
>If Auto-trol were able to convince CGMO that it would join effective
>October 1st, I think there would be a lot of sympathy to invite you to the
>F2F -- it really is the critical "decide the future" meeting, there are
>Process provisions which would allow for it.  (This F2F is a cheap air
>destination from Denver, and we apparently have a good deal at Embassy
>Suites.)
>
>-Lofton.
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 5:43 PM
> >To: Robert Orosz
> >Subject: Fwd: [cgmo-webcgm] Fwd: results of 1.0 errata scan
> >
> >
> >Rob,
> >
> >Careful reader that you are, I thought I should call your attention to
> >this, in case you have noted some 1.0 errata that never made it into
> >discussions in my archives (my union of the TC archives and private,
> >unarchived discussions.)
> >
> >Btw, any word yet on Auto-trol possibly rejoining the TC?  I don't suppose
> >anything would happen in time for you to attend the F2F on 22nd?  It will
> >likely define the future work on WebCGM -- 2.1 or 3.0 or nothing or ...
> >
> >Regards,
> >-Lofton.
> >
> > >Mailing-List: contact cgmo-webcgm-help@lists.oasis-open.org; run by ezmlm
> > >List-Post: <mailto:cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > >List-Help: <mailto:cgmo-webcgm-help@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cgmo-webcgm-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > >List-Subscribe: <mailto:cgmo-webcgm-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > >Delivered-To: mailing list cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > >X-Sender: lofton@rockynet.com
> > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
> > >Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:37:18 -0600
> > >To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > >From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
> > >X-Declude-Sender: lofton@rockynet.com [207.189.196.72]
> > >X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for
> > >spam.
> > >X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 at oasis-open.org
> > >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 tagged_above=-10.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,
> > >         BAYES_20
> > >X-Spam-Level:
> > >Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] Fwd: results of 1.0 errata scan
> > >Mailarmory-Level:
> > >Mailarmory-Category: clean (0)
> > >Mailarmory-Filter-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:37:34 -0600 (MDT)
> > >Mailarmory-Details:
> >
> >U2FsdGVkX19qfkPNtkTcbcdssBCq5lJYLFOW13baBRNZbkW+MTpcFlkM4r37ETNKD1WWhl8Qc8i
> >PmCw3c1FTBg==
> > >X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@rockynet.com>
> > >X-SpamCatcher-Score: 0
> > >X-SpamCatcher-IP: 127.0.0.1
> > >X-SpamCatcher-1: 9bce978b45632538b7faea6c95fc12e2
> > >
> > >WebCGM TC,
> > >
> > >Note the message  just posted to the W3C WebCGM WG:
> > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Aug/0001.html
> > >
> > >This more or less wraps up the initial assembly of a complete list of
> > >potential 1.0 errata.  If anyone in this TC (or reading this message) has
> > >others, please communicate them to me.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >-Lofton.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 21:06:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:10 GMT