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

Re: [Draft] Response to Last Call comment

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:42:08 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090816130143.026d3970@localhost>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
All --

As I read Mohamed's reply:

1.) he is satisfied with our schema reply -- we are in agreement that a 
schema definition belongs on WebCGM's future-deliverables wish list.  Does 
anyone object to that?  (We could not add a formal deliverable without 
modifying the Charter, which I don't think we intend to do.  I say "wish 
list", because we can't commit to delivery until we know that the resources 
are available.  In other words, it is a SHOULD-level requirement.)

2.) he would like an informative mention of the CSS/WebCGM question.  I see 
a couple possibilities:

2a)  modify/split and add a sentence to 3rd paragraph of 2.7.2 (all of 
which is informative),
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webcgm21-20090604/WebCGM21-Concepts.html#webcgm_2_5
or
2b)  Add a sentence "Informative note:  ..." as a new second paragraph to 5.4:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webcgm21-20090604/WebCGM21-DOM.html#L2666

A non-normative reference to the WebCGM/CSS paper would be added to 1.3, 
and linked from the new sentence(s).  The sentence(s) would be along the 
lines of, "Note.  Potential relationships between WebCGM and CSS were 
@@studied in some detail@@ prior to the addition of DOM-accessible and 
XCF-accessible Style Properties and APS Attributes to WebCGM 
2.0.  Ultimately, a lean and minimal WebCGM-specific model, that borrowed 
heavily from applicable CSS concepts (e.g., inheritance), was 
chosen."   [@@...@@ would link to the new informative reference in Ch.1.]

My Assessment:  This doesn't really add anything useful to the WebCGM 2.1 
spec.  But on the other hand, it is little work and does no apparent harm, 
and satisfies a comment (therefore is probably a better solution than 
saying "no" to #2).  (Who knows, someone might find the 
Cruikshank-Henderson reference to be fascinating reading!)

Thoughts?  Suggestions?

Regards,
-Lofton.

At 09:56 AM 8/13/2009 -0400, Innovimax SARL wrote:
>Dear Lofton,
>
>Please find my answer inside the email
>
>On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Lofton Henderson 
><<mailto:lofton@rockynet.com>lofton@rockynet.com> wrote:
>>Dear Mohamed,
>>
>>The WebCGM Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] about the 
>>WebCGM 2.1 Second Last Call Working Draft [2] published on 04 June 
>>2009.  Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and 
>>send us comments.
>>
>>The Working Group's response resolution to your comment is included below.
>>
>>Please review it carefully and acknowledge this WebCGM WG response by 
>>replying to this mail and copying the WebCGM public mailing list, 
>><mailto:public-webcgm@w3.org>public-webcgm@w3.org.  Please reply before 
>>17 August 2009, and let us know whether you accept the WG response or 
>>not.  If we receive no reply from you by August 17, then we will default 
>>your reply to "WebCGM WG response accepted."
>>
>>In case you do not accept the WG response, you are requested to provide a 
>>specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group.
>>
>>If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity 
>>to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director 
>>during the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C 
>>Recommendation Track.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>On behalf of the WebCGM Working Group,
>>Lofton Henderson, WebCGM WG Chair.
>>
>>[1] 
>><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2009Jun/0002.html>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2009Jun/0002.html
>>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webcgm21-20090604/
>>_____________________________________________________________
>>* Comment Sent: Sat, 20 Jun 2009
>>* Archived:
>><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2009Jun/0002.html>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2009Jun/0002.html
>>The WebCGM WG has the following responses to your comment:
>>----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>SUMMARY of your first comment:
>>1 == moving forward with XML Schema or Relax NG ==
>>Sticking to DTD to define a XML dialect is neither sufficient neither a 
>>way to widespread the use of this XML dialect. For that, I ask the WG to 
>>consider providing normative XML Schema and/or Relax NG schema of the XCF 
>>model. It will help adoption especially because XCF uses Namespaces.
>>
>>RESPONSE to your first comment:
>>The WebCGM Working Group (WG) agrees that WebCGM could potentially 
>>benefit by addition of a normative schema -- XML Schema or Relax NG. 
>>Unfortunately, this proposal is beyond the scope of this 2nd LCWD review, 
>>and it is deemed to be too late in the WebCGM 2.1 development cycle. 
>>Ideally, such a proposal would have been included in the WebCGM 2.1 
>>Requirements, or before 1st LCWD review at latest. The implementation of 
>>such a proposal would involve major disruption of the WebCGM 2.1 text -- 
>>removal of the DTD and complete rewriting of Chapter 4 (at least). Since 
>>it does not address an error in the specification, or a serious defect, 
>>or violation of any W3C requirement, the WG believes that the proposal 
>>should be postponed until a future WebCGM development cycle.
>
>Fair enough. I was not suggesting removing the DTD
>>
>>
>>As an interim step, the WG thinks that a non-normative Technical Note, 
>>separate from the progression of 2.1 WebCGM, might be an interesting 
>>approach. The WG would also welcome an initial contribution, if you have 
>>interest in making such.
>
>That's seems exactly what I proposed. I'm sorry since I don't have any 
>initial contribution, but I will be happy to give it a try or to review 
>them with care
>
>>
>>
>>
>>SUMMARY of your second comment:
>>2 == interaction between WebCGM and CSS ==
>>Is it possible to consider the role that could play CSS vis  vis WebCGM ?
>>
>>RESPONSE to your second comment:
>>Potential relationships between WebCGM and CSS were studied in some 
>>detail [3] prior to the WebCGM 2.0 standardization. This study [3] 
>>developed a detailed model and showed the technical feasibility for a 
>>rich application of CSS-like styling to WebCGM.
>>[3] 
>><http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/stylable_cgm_submitted_0324.pdf>http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/stylable_cgm_submitted_0324.pdf
>
>Is it possible to consider adding an informative note on that work in the 
>spec (with one or two sentence along), if it is not already there ?
>
>>
>>Despite the technical feasibility, the WebCGM 2.0 authors and 
>>constituents agreed that the the principal WebCGM use cases did not 
>>justify the cost and implementation effort of such a full-featured 
>>normative CSS capability in WebCGM. Therefore normative CSS-like style 
>>sheets were not further pursued.
>>
>>Nevertheless, whenever possible, applicable features and characteristics 
>>of CSS were followed in the design of WebCGM 2.0, especially the new 
>>DOM-based Style Properties feature. For example the inheritance model of 
>>CSS was adapted directly into the Style Properties inheritance model 
>>(section 5.4), and there are a number of other examples of functionality 
>>borrowed more-or-less directly from CSS.
>
>Thanks for your answers
>
>Regards,
>
>Mohamed
>--
>Innovimax SARL
>Consulting, Training & XML Development
>9, impasse des Orteaux
>75020 Paris
>Tel : +33 9 52 475787
>Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
><http://www.innovimax.fr>http://www.innovimax.fr
>RCS Paris 488.018.631
>SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 19:43:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 August 2009 19:43:04 GMT