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

WebCGM draft

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:30:05 +0200
Message-ID: <48C7696D.60702@w3.org>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Lofton,


When do you plan to have a document ready for approuval by the WG.
If we want to target the public	tion on spet 17th, we must approuve 
tomorrow, freeze the document and I will check it and request transition 
request. Once approuved by my domain Leader I will request Publication.

TM.


  Henderson wrote:
> 
> Hi Thierry,
> 
> I have done a lot more work on
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM ,
> and have more questions and comments.
> 
> First, a global question:  are we sure that this new21 markup will be 
> acceptable to the people who are ruling on the WebCGM21 spec. 
> acceptability for /TR/ (pubrules)?
> 
> Second, if "yes":  if we markup the whole document, should the SoTD say 
> something?
> 
> Details...
> 
> a.) Okay.  That markup (below) with the IDL blocks works.  (Could apply 
> it also to the ECMAScript chapter.)
> 
> b.) I ran into problems again, trying to use the <div> approach on a 
> group of rows in a table:
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM#styleprop-table 
> 
> 
> So I created a variant of the new21 style, called "new21-inline" and 
> applied it to each <tr>.  It omits the margins and borders.  (It also 
> works applying it to lists, as in the <ul> in the local TOC at the start 
> of the chapter.  But we don't necessarily have to markup that TOC stuff).
> 
> Questions....
> 
> 1.) threshold question:  here is a good threshold example.  Search on 
> 'grnode' in WebCGM21-DOM.html.  In a dozen places, you'll find 
> single-sentence clarifications of the attribute/method behavior if the 
> node type is 'grnode'.  This is not new functionality, but rather 
> clarification of ambiguity that existed in WebCGM 2.0.  The changes are 
> referenced in the Change Log.  Should they be highlighted?  It seems to 
> me that we should be careful to separate new functionality from 
> editorial. improvements (like clarifications) to 2.0 functionality.
> 
> Another such example is the new last paragraph to each of 2.2.2 and 
> 2.2.3, clarifying 2.0 alpha transparency functionality:
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Concepts.html#webcgm_2_2_2 
> 
> 
> 2.) deletions?  I can't think right now whether there are any functional 
> deletions, but I think there might be.  It would probably be in the 
> context of deprecation/obsoletion...
> 
> 3.) Deprecation/obsoletion:  things that are deprecated in one version 
> migrate to obsolete in the next.  Is that a new feature to be marked?
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Conf.html#webcgm_conformance_deprObs 
> 
> 
> (Some of this might be easiest to discuss at the Thursday telecon.)
> 
> -Lofton.
> 
> 
> 
> At 10:05 AM 9/8/2008 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
> 
>> Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>> Thierry,
>>> It is possible to find Valid markup, based on <span>:
>>> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM-2nd.html#L5095 
>>>
>>> (I had to tag each line individually.   Else they overlapped and 
>>> obscured each other if I tagged 6 lines with one <span>.)
>>
>>
>> tag each line individually with <span>, the rendering is not too elegant.
>>
>> I would suggest following code:
>>
>> <td>
>>  <pre>interface WebCGMAppStructure
>>       ...
>>  </pre>
>>
>>  <div class="new21">
>>   <pre>WebCGMRect   getObjectExtent();
>>        ...
>>   </pre>
>>  </div>
>> </td>
>>
>> see
>> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM-3nd.html#L5095 
>>
>>
>> which does validate.
>>
>>
>> TM.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 06:30:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 September 2008 06:30:55 GMT