W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > April 2009

issues list for WG

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:53:17 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090422153352.03d85448@rockynet.com>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Robert Orosz <roboro@auto-trol.com>, Forrest Carpenter <forrest@sdicgm.com>,Ulrich Läsche <ulrich@cgmtech.de>
All --

During TS and implementation development in the TC, a handful of issues has 
come up that have not yet been processed by the WG.

Below are pointers to those discussion threads for those issues.  Most of 
you have already seen these.

These will be on the WG agenda for this week's vF2F telecons.  Please 
review them.  We intend to close all issues by CoB Wednesday.

1.) editorial issue with 'scale()' method:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200904/msg00051.html
(Proposed: change wording as in email message.)

2.) QUESTION: 'maplist' or 'mapList'?
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200904/msg00066.html
(Proposed:  camel-case the 'maplist' and 'dashlength' deviations.)

3.) ACI substitution of non-existent font:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200904/msg00037.html
(Proposed:  no change, it is clear in the text)

4.) getObjectExtent and text (thread splits):
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200904/msg00077.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200904/msg00078.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200904/msg00116.html
(Proposed:  discuss & chose the right metric points, normatively include 
the info.)

5.) ACI DTD and conformance:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200904/msg00100.html
(Proposed:  Dave's new wording.)

6.) upgrade XML 1.0 references to 5th Edition:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200904/msg00104.html

Comments:

#1, #2, #3 seem to have reached consensus.  If you have any contrary 
opinions, then please send them by email before the vF2F starts.

#5 is mostly about drafting the fix-it text, which Dave has done.  #6 looks 
simple and necessary, but we should check about any changed conformance 
requirements.

#4 just came up and is still under discussion -- seeking input from all the 
implementors (how did they implement the 'boxed-all' Restricted Text style?)

Regards,
-Lofton. 
Received on Sunday, 26 April 2009 18:54:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 26 April 2009 18:54:25 GMT