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

Re: WebCGM draft

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:56:29 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>,WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Hi Thierry,

I will try to finish a "new12" markup version today.

If I don't succeed, then we can go with the version in 
../current-editor/.., without the new12 markup.

Does that sound okay?


At 08:30 AM 9/10/2008 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:

>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.
>  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 
>>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:
>>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).
>>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:
>>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?
>>(Some of this might be easiest to discuss at the Thursday telecon.)
>>At 10:05 AM 9/8/2008 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>>>Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>>>It is possible to find Valid markup, based on <span>:
>>>>(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:
>>>  <pre>interface WebCGMAppStructure
>>>       ...
>>>  </pre>
>>>  <div class="new21">
>>>   <pre>WebCGMRect   getObjectExtent();
>>>        ...
>>>   </pre>
>>>  </div>
>>>which does validate.
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 13:00:26 UTC

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