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: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:26:47 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090819090447.0273b790@localhost>
To: David Cruikshank <dvdcruikshank@gmail.com>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
At 07:29 AM 8/18/2009 -0700, David Cruikshank wrote:
>I looks like we're ok on comment #1
>
>On # 2,I would opt to put the new sentence in 2.72 where it talks about scope.

I think it will require a little reworking of the 3rd paragraph of 2.7.2, 
to bring in that level of detail and the concept of CSS (not mentioned yet 
anywhere there).  Here following I have drafted both options for your 
reading enjoyment...

Opt.2, Compare new:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Concepts.html#DOM-scope
to old:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webcgm21-20090604/WebCGM21-Concepts.html#webcgm-concepts-DOM

Opt.1, in section 5.4, would look something like this (new 2nd pgph of 5.4):
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-DOM.html#L2666

Thoughts?

(We can discuss and choose at F2F.)

-Lofton.


>thx....Dave
>
>On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Lofton Henderson<lofton@rockynet.com> wrote:
> > 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 <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,
> > 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
> > [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
> > 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
> >
> > 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
> > RCS Paris 488.018.631
> > SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 21:27:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 August 2009 21:27:38 GMT