RE: [Agenda] WebCGM telecon: Thursday, 20 November 2008 (DRAFT)

At 11:15 AM 11/20/2008 -0500, Bezaire, Benoit wrote:

>Resolve them without me.

We have started on them.  We expect that there will be more email comments 
on the threads as a result of today's telecon.  Anything that we can close 
definitively by the end of 04-dec telecon will be included in the response 
to 1st Last Call.  Else it will be resolved in the WG internal development 
period between 1st LC and a 2nd LC in a couple months.


>About the 'locus'... In my opinion, the wording of getObjectExtent() is
>underspecified. No two implementation will return the same bounding box
>for a given set of APS. That's my opinion. I'm trying to propose ways to
>clarify the wording by removing 'locus' or defining 'locus'.
>
>You seem to like that word (locus), I don't.

Yes.

If I can summarize today's telecon discussion:  the majority seem 
comfortable with the use of 'locus' without a Glossary entry;  however, a 
specific wording proposal for revised wording in the getObjectExtent() 
wording and/or for a Glossary entry would be welcome.

Will you take the action item to draft such?


>With the current wording, it's still unclear in my opinion if bezier
>control points are included or not.

Then I would assume you have the same issue about the centerpoint of a 
CIRCULAR ARC CENTER element, for example?  In both cases, the points are 
parameters that are used to define the set of points that comprise the 
graphical primitive, but are not a part of it.

-Lofton.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:57 AM
>To: Bezaire, Benoit; WebCGM WG
>Subject: RE: [Agenda] WebCGM telecon: Thursday, 20 November 2008 (DRAFT)
>
>At 09:59 AM 11/20/2008 -0500, Bezaire, Benoit wrote:
>
> >[...]
> >I can't make it. I have another important meeting to attend.
>
>Since all of the "Active new threads" have come from you, what would you
>propose that we do with them?  Resolve them in your absence?  Or
>postpone them till you can be present?
>
>
> >Could we put 'locus' in the Glossary section?
>
>IMO, it's not necessary -- WebCGM has gotten along without it for 10
>years (in ch.6 Profile).  But I don't much care.
>
>If someone will take the action to propose a definition, and it is
>approved by the WG, then I guess it will go in.  (As Google shows,
>almost any math glossary defines it.)
>
>-Lofton.
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org
> >[mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lofton Henderson
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 5:25 PM
> >To: WebCGM WG
> >Subject: [Agenda] WebCGM telecon: Thursday, 20 November 2008 (DRAFT)
> >
> >
> >
> >Hello WebCGM WG,
> >
> >If you can't attend this week's WG teleconference, please reply (to
> >list) with "regrets".
> >
> >Main topic:  approval of LC Review resolutions.
> >
> >WebCGM, Thursday, 20 November 2008, 11:00am-12:30pm ET (logistics
> >below, following agenda)
> >
> >Previous minutes
> >=====
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Oct/0019.html
> >
> >Agenda
> >=====
> >
> >Chair:  Lofton
> >
> >Scribe:  tbd
> >(See:
> >[0]
> >http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/Group/scribing-guidelines.html
> >)
> >
> >1.) roll call 11:00am ET,
> >         -- agenda:  additions?
> >         -- any routine WG business?
> >
> >2.) Al Gilman questions & remarks [1]
> >         -- for next telecon?
> >
> >3.) LC Review completion and DoC [2]
> >         -- proposed completion around 04-dec
> >         -- comments logged so far [2]
> >         -- endorsement of Proposed Resolution for #1, #2, #3 [2]
> >
> >4.) I18N comments [7]
> >         -- editorial comments #1 & #2 [8]
> >         -- comments #3 & #4 -- normalization rules [9]
> >         -- comments #5 & #6 -- TBD.
> >
> >5.) Active new threads:
> >         -- process in (1st) LC, or after 1st LC closure?
> >         -- getObjectExtent "abstract locus" [4]
> >         -- getObjectExtent include 'viewcontext'? [5]
> >         -- setView() rectangles w/ different aspect ratio [6]
> >         -- setView() invalid or extreme rectangle  [3]
> >
> >6.) Status & Forecast for test suite and implementations
> >         -- feedback from implementors & test writers
> >         -- anticipation of further comments
> >         -- Potential content, timing, and possibility of January F2F
> >
> >7.) Next telecon:  04 December 2008
> >
> >8.) Adjourn
> >
> >[1]
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0023.html
> >[2] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2008/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html
> >
> >[3]
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0036.html
> >[4]
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0028.html
> >[5]
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0029.html
> >[6]
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0039.html
> >
> >[7] http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0811-webcgm/
> >[8]
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0046.html
> >[9]
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0048.html
> >
> >Logistics
> >----------
> >Zakim bridge +1 617-761-6200 (US) or +33.4.89.06.34.99 (France)
> >code: 932246 ("WEBCGM")
> >IRC, channel #webcgm
> >http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/Group/Overview.html
> >
> >Regards,
> >Lofton

Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 18:28:39 UTC