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: <5.1.0.14.2.20080910065136.0276da10@localhost>
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?

-Lofton.

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

>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 13:00:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 September 2008 13:00:28 GMT