W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: webCGM 2.1 first draft

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:43:06 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>,WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Hi Thierry,

Thanks for your early work on our 2.1 draft.  It looks like it is very 
close to publishable in its present state, other than the couple broken links.

I have embedded a couple more comments in your message...

At 02:12 PM 8/19/2008 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:

>I have checked the webCGM 2.1 draft at
>A- It conforms to the pubrules checker [1]

Great!  I haven't had time to do that yet, but I did check validity and 
(most) links.

>we only need to
>1- request a new short name to the Director
>http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm21/ (1 occurrence)

You will do this, right?  (Or is this something I should do?)

>2- specify an end  date for the Last Call review (format DD Month YYYY) in 
>the SOTD.
>I would suggest to write 10 November 2008 (just before our F2F)

That is probably a good choice -- it leaves 2 weeks before the F2F.

I wonder ... is it a better idea to start later (than mid-Sept) and have LC 
review be closer to 4 weeks?  Or is it a better idea to start in mid-Sept 
and have it be 6-8 weeks?

(This is something we might talk about.)

>B- I have also checked validate XHTML validation. All files successfully 
>checked as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
>C- Finally I checked for broken links whith the linkchecker [2] . A couple 
>of  broken fragments to be fixed  (For more details refer to [3]).
>     What to do: The link is broken. Fix it NOW!
>     Response status code: 404
>     Response message: Not Found
>     Lines: 64, 65
>     Broken fragments and their line numbers:
>         abstract: 64
>         Authors: 65
>I have not yet read the all document, but just a first comment:
>I suggest to better highlight what is new in webCGM 2.1, as we would like 
>people to comment during Last Call review only about new features 
>introduced in *2.1*.

Good idea!  It will take a little work, but worth it I think.

>This could be done for example with a background styling color for new 
>sections/paragraphs introduced in webCGM 2.1. (Of course we could remove 
>it latter on, in CR if needed).

Hmmm... I need to try to remember now, about how much significant 
new/modified text there is.  I guess one could run an HTML comparison tool, 
but it would mark way too much stuff.  We really only want the significant 
/ substantive changes.

So maybe a combination of:  I could use the Change Log to guide me, where 
to manually apply the "whats-new-2.1" style; and/or we could run a 
comparison and eliminate the trivial differences (and mark the significant 


>Or have links to new sections in the [4] "what is new" Appendix.

Yes, that Appendix needs work.  It was put together hastily.  Needs more 
detail, and links would be good.

>I would also have in the  "1. Introduction to WebCGM" chapter a "What is 
>new in WebCGM 2.1" section with at least a link to the "what is new" 
>Appendix. for people reading the intro to have a quick glance of what's new.

Good idea also.

>Thanks for this great work Lofton. Once the WebCGM WG CfP is lunched, I 
>will request the webcgm21 short name and we will be ready for publication.
>And congratulation  to the TC for your specification work.

Thanks for your help and helpful suggestions on this!

Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 00:44:10 UTC

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