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

RE: 1.0 errata as of end of Seattle F2F

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:44:22 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20070829104032.0326cdd0@localhost>
To: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

At 11:31 AM 8/28/2007 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote:
>Lofton,
>
>Here are some of the references on the MPP problems....couldn't find
>Rob's original review.
>
>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200510/msg00070.html
>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200510/doc00001.doc

Rob's original review is here:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200509/msg00136.html

I will try to make a pass to see if there is anything that has 
*substantive* impact on WebCGM 1.0.  Most of this was a matter of 1.0 using 
the wrong PPF tables for the original 1.0 version.  Unless a particular 
item makes for a substantive change to the 1.0 profile, I plan to ignore it.

Deviations from the proper CGM (ISO 8632) were corrected in 2.0 PPF, 
according to this piece of work of Rob's, so it is only an 1.0 issue.

Regards,
-Lofton.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:11 AM
>To: Thierry Michel; WebCGM WG
>Subject: Re: 1.0 errata as of end of Seattle F2F
>
>
>Thierry,
>
>At 07:30 PM 8/27/2007 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>
> >Lofton,
> >
> >If my understanding is correct
> >
> >All errata have been resolved and  "WebCGM TC endorsed on 2007-08-24"
> >(and are likely to be approuved by theWebCGM WG ;-)
> >
> >
> >except, following which are rejected:
> >- E09: drawing model descriptions of 1.0 & 2.0
>
>Yes, rejected as being unnecessary.
>
> >- E10: deviations of WebCGM 1.0 Model Profile from normative ISO CGM
> >standard
>
>Rejected for now because necessary details have not been supplied (by
>me).  It is a complicated and messy one, and needs some careful review
>of historical stuff.  Most likely it will not in fact result in any
>*substantive* errata, in which case we will ignore it.
>
>I am going to try to do the historical review in the next couple of
>days.
>
>Regards,
>-Lofton.
>
>
>
> >  Henderson wrote:
> >>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-10/WebCGM10-errata-20
> >>070621.html
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2007 16:50:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:40 UTC