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

RE: call for 1.0 errata

From: Cruikshank, David W <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:53:37 -0700
Message-ID: <740D2CE97CEE6D4592D28C8B965280F7072DB013@XCH-NW-4V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>, "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Ok...I did a little searching.

There may be some overlap with what Lofton has already done:

>From the discussions with CL on WebCGM 2.0:

======================== CL-c5======================== Non-ASCII characters in URIs

I think that is OK

***Lofton's Preliminary Assessment***
Great! We got it right. (This should also be the subject of a clarifying
erratum for 1.0.)

Proposed Resolution
Do nothing for WebCGM 2.0. Add to erratum list for WebCGM 1.0.


======================== CL-d8========================
[[[The address of the link (the first parameter of the 'linkuri') is any
valid URL according to the rules of RFC 3986.]]]

That seems to be a change from WebCGM 1.0, which allowed a URI or a
string that could be escaped to form a URI. Although WebCGM 1.0 v2 says
"The address of the link (the first parameter of the 'linkuri') is any
valid URL according to the rules of RFC-2396.". hmmm

***Lofton's Preliminary Assessment***
This wording should have been changed and was missed. There is a similar
sentence in which *was* changed, simultaneous with fixing (non-ASCII in URIs). Those changed were made together, to remove
ambiguity that existed in 1.0, and clarify for 2.0. (They are planned to
be an erratum for 1.0, to validate the two different, correct readings
of 1.0).

Proposed Resolution
Fix it as just described.


Telecon Minutes - 1/16/2004
Revision 1 of Dieter's proposal adopts Lofton's comment (See
200411/doc00000.doc).  What is not specified are defaults.    The
proposal was approved.  Dieter needs to work into the proposal a way to
zoom to some larger viewcontext than the extents of the primitives (e.g.
-navigating to a callout number when it doesn't have a viewcontext).  A
"zoom margin" was suggested, but it would complicate the fragment
syntax.  Forrest asked about a DOM call of get APS extents, like SVG get
bounding box.  
*	Ben will write a proposal for get APS extents (alternative:
zoom margin).  
*	Based on the inconsistency that was pointed out by Dieter,
Lofton will add some wording to the errata.
*	Continue object behavior details via email. 


Telecon Minutes - 5/5/2005 (not erratum??)
Lofton is still researching the correct sequence tails for UTF-8 and
UTF-16.  Once this is done, an errata statement will also be made to
WebCGM 1.0. NOTE FROM 6/29/05 - This will not be an errata item for
WebCGM 1.0 - It will be documented in 2.0 in "what's new" and
"deprecated" section.


Telecon Minutes - 7/14/2004
Draft an errata statement for WebCGM1.0 Release 2 to deal with the
conflict on whether name is allowed on para/subpara


>From last Cologne f2f meeting - is there anything we have to do about
Mitre Limit?  Was this supposed to be a defect report for SC24?


That's what I've found...

Thx....Dave Cruikshank

Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
Boeing Commercial Airplane
206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: call for 1.0 errata

Status report and correction...

So far, I have gotten zero response on this.  Does no one know of any
1.0 errata?  I.e., you haven't even marked up your paper copy with typo
corrections, etc?

Dave, would CGMO TC minutes contain any references to such stuff?  Could
you either check them, or divide 'em up and delegate to other TC/WG

A correction to my earlier message is below embedded...

At 07:31 AM 6/22/2007 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>WebCGM WG --
>I have started the 1.0 errata document:
>Please send (to me and WG list) any 1.0 errata you are aware of, 
>whether significant or trivial editorial.
>In skeleton form, I have included the first two definite errata, E01 
>and E02.  They need to be fleshed out considerably, so consider them 
>mostly as placeholders for now.
>I had a couple other ideas, E03 and E04.  I think E03 probably should 
>be an erratum -- the 1.0 text about searching priorities, etc, should 
>be clarified that it is "for example" , as 2.0 did (as opposed to some 
>wooly sort of normative specification, as it could be read now.)
>Upon further thought I think E04 -- correction of designation sequence 
>tails for SF -- should *not* be an erratum, and should be dropped.  
>Looking at how we corrected the goof in 2.0 -- grandfathering the 1.0 
>form of the tail while requiring the corrected form for 2.0 -- to go 
>back and correct it unambiguously in 1.0 would invalidate all presently

>valid 1.0 content.  Bad idea, IMO.

The designation-sequence-tail glitch was actually about type S
(graphical text), not type SF.  It was the 1.0 one-byte bug in how the
d-s-t is specified in the Character Set List element.

Received on Monday, 9 July 2007 21:03:14 UTC

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