W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm@w3.org > December 2008

Response to WebCGM 2.1 Last Call comment: CGZ files

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:21:48 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20081218104934.036baf48@localhost>
To: bbezaire@ptc.com
Cc: public-webcgm@w3.org

Dear Benoit,

The WebCGM Working Group has reviewed the comment you sent [1] about the 
WebCGM 2.1 Last Call Working Draft [2] published on 17 October 2008.  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>. Let us know if you agree with it or not before 11 
Jan 2009.  If we receive no reply from you by January 11, then we will 
default your reply to "WebCGM WG response accepted."

In case of disagreement, 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-wg/2008Oct/0020.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/
_____________________________________________________________
* Comment Sent: Fri, 17 Oct 2008
* Archived:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Oct/0020.html

The WebCGM WG has the following responses to your comment:
----------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY of your comment:

>I find the draft underspecified about compressed CGM files. More 
>specifically, we would like to know what kind of CGM files may be 
>compressed?Version 1 to 4? Can I compress a WebCGM 1.0 CGM file for 
>example? Is this a WebCGM 2.1 conformance feature for viewer and authoring 
>tools? Or is this a new WebCGM 2.1 (and only 2.1) 'encoding scheme' ... 
>for lack of a better word?

RESPONSE to your comment:

>The WebCGM WG will clarify your questions and the gzip conformance 
>requirements as follows:
>
>1.) Remove the gzip requirement from T.13.1 in Chapter 6, by changing 
>"Other: the whole metafile may be GZIP compressed. WebCGM interpreters 
>must support GZIP-compressed metafiles." to "Other: none".
>2.) Add to the end of Section 7.1: "WebCGM 2.1 viewers, both static and 
>dynamic, shall correctly handle valid WebCGM 2.1 Binary-encoded metafiles 
>that are gzip-compressed. WebCGM 2.1 viewers that claim to correctly 
>handle valid WebCGM metafiles of an earlier WebCGM version (1.0 or 2.0) 
>according to the conformance rules of that earlier version, shall 
>correctly handle such metafiles when they are gzip compressed."
>3.) In section 2.4, change ""6.2 Metafile rules" to "7.1 Conformance 
>definitions", and link the latter to 
>"WebCGM21-Conf.html#webcgm_conformance_CoP"

--------------------------- end -------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2008 18:22:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:37:35 GMT