W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm@w3.org > July 2006

Response to WebCGM 2.0 Last Call comment: 2006Jul/0000.html

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:20:51 +0200
Message-ID: <44BFAD63.4020901@w3.org>
To: fsasaki@w3.org
CC: public-webcgm@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org

Felix,

The WebCGM WG thank you for your comments on WebCGM 2.0.

    *  Sent: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 22:52:15 +0900
    * Archived:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2006Jul/0000.html

The WebCGM WG has the following responses to your comments:

 > Comment 1 (editorial): <title> elements in some files are confusing
 > It seems that some <title> elements contain "OASIS CGM Open
 > specification - ...", e.g.
 > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/WebCGM20-TOC.html
 > "OASIS CGM Open specification - WebCGM Profile - Expanded Table of 
Contents"
 > This is just confusing and should be fixed.

RESPONSE to Comment 1:
Agreed, we will fix it.  Thanks for catching this.  The <title> elements 
should match the text that immediately precedes the horizontal rule at 
the top of each chapter.

 > Comment 2 (editorial): Reference to Unicode
 > In > 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/WebCGM20-Intro.html#norm-ref
 > you have two references to Unicode, one generic reference, and one to
 > version 4.01. Is there a reason for that? If not, please reference to
 > Unicode following the description at
 > http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-RefUnicode , that is, only in a
 > generic manner.

RESPONSE to Comment 2:
Originally we had considered that both generic and specific were 
appropriate, as described in CharMod C063 [1] (and its immediately 
preceding comment).  Upon further discussion, the WebCGM WG believes 
that generic alone suffices.  The References will be changed to contain 
only the generic reference.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#C063

 > Comment 3 (editorial): Why not Unicode as the default encoding?
 > In
 > 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/WebCGM20-Concepts.html#webcgm_2_4
 > , (sec. 2.5.4), you describe isolatin1 as the default "character set".
 > We would propose to describe UTF-8 as the default character encoding,
 > and to use the term "character encoding" instead of "character set". See
 > also http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#C020 .

RESPONSE to Comment 3:
The basic reason is "legacy".  WebCGM 2.0 is an upgrade of WebCGM 1.0, 
which is a profile of ISO CGM:1999.  In ISO CGM:1999 (and :1992, :1987 
before it), the default is isolatin1.  Because the default is implicit 
(nothing in the CGM file declares it), and because of the mechanism 
which ISO CGM specifies for changing to a non-default character encoding 
for a metafile instance, in fact it would be technically ill-specified 
(i.e., unimplementable) for a profile such as WebCGM 2.0 to prescribe 
that the implicit default is other than isolatin1.

We agree that WebCGM 2.0 should use the proper terminology, "character 
encoding", where ever possible.  In some places it is not possible, such 
as the proper names of ISO CGM:1999 elements (e.g., "CHARACTER SET 
LIST").  But we will make appropriate changes in the descriptive, prose 
parts of the profile.

Please acknowledge this WebCGM WG response by replying to this mail and
copying the WebCGM public mailing list:

Best regards,


On behalf of the WebCGM Working Group,
Thierry Michel,  WebCGM WG Team Contact.
Received on Thursday, 20 July 2006 16:21:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:37:34 GMT