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

Re: [2nd LC Review] Comments

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:14:18 +0200
Message-ID: <4A3F83AA.1040509@w3.org>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
CC: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

Lofton Henderson wrote:
> 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.

Namespace are better handled by Schemas.
There are conversion tools from DTD to relax NG schemas, but of course 
these are only a translation and the schema outputted does not provide 
more infos (for example constraints that Schema offer and that DTDs 
don't do).

> 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.

I agree.

> 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 13:14:55 UTC

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