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

Re: [correction] Response to WebCGM 2.1 Last Call comment: i18n comment 6: Unicode

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:01:08 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>,public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

Thierry, thanks for sending the correction.  I guess we are done for now, 
until we start getting responses.  The DoC is fully updated, including 
links for all "Response sent to commenter is archived at:".

In the quiet time, I will start producing the edited spec, for a new WD 
publication.  Questions:

-- is there a preferred place for us to put the evolving editor's drafts 
(in WG space)?

-- we anticipate a 2nd last call in Jan-Feb timeframe, as implementation 
work uncovers more issues.  Should we use the same yellow-with-red-border 
markup for everything?  Or should we be fancy and try to use markup to 
distinguish changes since 1st LCWD?  (They will be documented in the Change 
Log appendix, in any case.)


At 08:43 AM 12/22/2008 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:

>Dear Richard,
>The WebCGM Working Group has reviewed the comment you sent [1] about the 
>WebCGM 2.1 Last Call Working Draft [2] published on 02 October 2008. Thank 
>you for having taken the time to review the document and send us comments.
>The Working Group's response resolution to your comment is included below.
>Please review it carefully and acknowledge this WebCGM WG response by 
>replying to this mail and copying the WebCGM public mailing list 
><public-webcgm@w3.org>. Let us know if you agree with it or not before 11 
>Jan 2009.  If we receive no reply from you by January 11, then we will 
>default your reply to "WebCGM WG response accepted."
>In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution 
>for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group.
>If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity 
>to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director 
>during the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C 
>Recommendation Track.
>Best regards,
>On behalf of the WebCGM Working Group,
>Thierry Michel, WebCGM WG Team Contact.
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Oct/0000.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/
>* Comment Sent: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:29:23 +0000
>* Archived:
>The WebCGM WG has the following responses to your comment:
>SUMMARY of your comment:
>Comment from the i18n review of:
>Comment 6
>At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0811-webcgm/
>Editorial/substantive: S
>Tracked by: RI
>Location in reviewed document:
>Normalization for string comparison should include conversion to a Unicode 
>normalization form, to eliminate issues related to precomposed vs. 
>decomposed characters and issues related to ordering of multiple combining 
>RESPONSE to your comment:
>WebCGM agrees that this is the consistent and reliable way to perform such 
>comparisons. Text to this effect will be added to the description of the 
>'cgmFont' value -- conversion to unicode normalization form should precede 
>the comparison and follow the other WebCGM-specific normalization.
>In 9.3.2, add a new sentence to the end of the description of 'cgmFont': 
>"After this WebCGM-specific normalization, correct and consistent results 
>when comparing metafile font names with the 'cgmFont' value — for font 
>names outside of WebCGM's restricted core set of thirteen specific fonts 
>(see T.16.13 of @@section 6.5@@) — may require that WebCGM processors 
>convert to a @@unicode normalization form@@ before performing the string 
>comparison." Also add to WebCGM Chapter 1 the references for both the 
>Unicode Standard Annex #15 [1] and the W3C Character Model, Part 2 
>(Normalization) [2].
>[1] http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod-norm/
>Incorporating all proposed changes, the paragraph of 'cgmFont' description 
>"The name of the font in the metafile for which font substitution is 
>requested. Before attempting to match a font used in the metafile to the 
>value (string) of cgmFont, both font names are normalized by a 
>WebCGM-specific normalization: convert to lower-case; and strip out all 
>whitespace, UNDERSCORE, and HYPHEN characters. Note: These normalization 
>rules are derived from and intended for the substantial volume of existing 
>metafiles that aim to invoke fonts from WebCGM's restricted core set of 
>thirteen specific fonts (see T.16.13 of @@section 6.5@@) and that contain 
>well-known and trivial deviations in the construction of those font names. 
>The rules may be less useful outside of that intended scope. The target 
>metafiles of these normalizations are most often, but not always, encoded 
>in WebCGM's default character encoding of ISO 8859-1. After this 
>WebCGM-specific normalization, correct and consistent results when 
>comparing metafile font names to the 'cgmFont' value — for font names 
>outside of WebCGM's restricted core set of thirteen specific fonts — may 
>require that WebCGM processors convert to a @@unicode normalization form@@ 
>before performing the comparison."
>[Ed note: @@section 6.5@@ denotes text "section 6.5" that links to 
>"WebCGM21-Profile.html#webcgm_4_5", which in the LCWD version is:
>@@unicode normalization form@@ denotes text "unicode normalization form" 
>that links to:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod-norm/#sec-ChoiceNFC ]
>--------------------------- end -------------------------------
Received on Monday, 22 December 2008 18:02:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:41 UTC