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

Re: [2nd LC Review] Comments

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:58:16 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090622064143.03050da0@localhost>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>,public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
Hi Thierry,

I basically agree with you:  it is out of scope for this review.  It would 
be a large amount of work to do this, and would heavily impact the 
schedule, which has already slipped too much.  I think, in the worst case, 
it could end up essentially requiring a rewrite of Ch.4.

I also tend to think there may be some merit to the idea, had it been 
brought up earlier.  (E.g., during "Requirements" phase, or a year ago at 
latest (CS review / 1st WD review).

We should (and will) have a full discussion in the full WG, of course.  I 
particularly want to understand his comment about Namespace.

It might be interesting to see if someone would like to write a Relax NG 
schema as a side project -- to be a technical article, but not a normative 
part of 2.1 at this time.  If it works out well and people like it, then 
perhaps it could be added to the REC/OS in a quick future Amendment, rather 
than delaying 2.1 further.

Thoughts, others?

-Lofton.

p.s.  Dave & I looked at the CSS question and wrote a paper, long ago:
http://www.cgmopen.org/webcgm/readings.html
http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/stylable_cgm_submitted_0324.pdf

At 01:45 PM 6/22/2009 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>Here is our first LC comment.
>Unfortunately this comment seem to be out of scope, as we are requesting 
>comments only on the differences between this second Last Call Working 
>Draft and the First Public and Last Call Working Draft.
>
>For XML Schema and/or Relax NG schema, unless someone wants to provide one ;-)
>we should probably say that yes it is a good idea, but we don't have the 
>ressource for such work and it is not required by the W3C to release such 
>Schema.
>
>Thoughts ?
>
>Thierry
>
>
>
>Innovimax SARL wrote:
>>Dear,
>>First congratulations for your 2.1 version
>>I want to spot some improvement that I wanted to be incorporated in this 
>>version
>>== 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.
>>== interaction between WebCGM and CSS ==
>>Is it possible to consider the role that could play CSS vis  vis WebCGM ?
>>Regards,
>>Mohamed ZERGAOUI
>>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 12:59:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 June 2009 12:59:15 GMT