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

[Minutes] WebCGM Telecon 2009-07-01

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:14:41 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

WebCGM WG --

The minutes of the teleconference are at


and also available as text, below.


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                             WebCGM Teleconf
                               01 Jul 2009



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/07/01-webcgm-irc


           Thierry, Dave_C, Stuart, Lofton

           benoit, don




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]roll call 11:00am ET,
          2. [6]Comments on 2nd LCWD
          3. [7]Implementation Report
          4. [8]next F2F: Ann Arbor
      * [9]Summary of Action Items

roll call 11:00am ET,

    <scribe> Scribe: stuart

    <lofton> agenda:


    <lofton> minutes:


Comments on 2nd LCWD

    There has been one comment so far.



    <tmichel> +q

    It is felt that it would be a lot of work to create a normative
    schema and would require a complete rewrite of chapter 4. That said,
    we might consider writing a schema as a non normative technical

    A similiar situation happened in SMIL and they used a tool to create
    a relax ng schema and included it in an informative appendix

    <lofton> As TM pointed out: SMIL used a tool to convert DTD to Relax
    NG, but the result of course has no greater richness than the DTD.

    <lofton> (So ... why bother, if you're not going to use the greater
    capability of the schema.)

    <lofton> TM also said: there is no W3C requirement for Schema vs.

    <lofton> TM: also invite commenter to make a contribution of a first
    cut at a schema.

    <lofton> SG: Relax NG or Schema?

    The comment also included a question about CSS.

    <lofton> my reply about CSS:


    <lofton> I'll summarize for the WG list and we can incorporate it
    into our response (in 2 weeks).

Implementation Report

    Thierry: suggests that we include the 2.1 tests in the
    impliementation report

    <tmichel> we should have a test suite covering 2.0 and 2.1

    <tmichel> 2.1 should be delivered in a subdirectory

    <tmichel> and we should have a implementation covering only the
    delta 21 tests

    <lofton> CR-exit and Impl. Report should *only* concern 2.1 changes
    (add-on functionality of 2.1).

    <tmichel> +1

    <lofton> A fine detail that needs to be answered: should the old 2.0
    (& 1.0) tests be updated in the ProfileEd string?

    <lofton> Or should the test suite, in the Overview.html, explain
    that tests with ProfileEd:2.0 (or 1.0) are 2.1-valid except for the
    ProfileEd string.

    <lofton> Or should METAFILE DESCRIPTION elt. in Ch.6 be changed to
    say that 1.0 and 2.0 are valid entries for ProfileEd in the 2.1
    version of WebCGM?

    <lofton> Ultimately: all ProfileEd should be 2.1.

    I (SG) will look into seeing how hard it would be to write a script
    to change the profileED to 2.1

    <lofton> But maybe as an expedient, we'll make the first release
    with the old 1.0 and 2.0, and explanation that future release will
    fix it to 2.1.

next F2F: Ann Arbor

    The two main items will be the CR transition changes and the test

    it is unknown how much of the schedule would be consumed with this.

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [14]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([15]CVS log)
     $Date: 2009/07/02 16:11:24 $

      [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 16:15:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:41 UTC