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

RE: Response to WebCGM 2.1 Last Call comment: T.14.4 and T.14.5

From: Robert Orosz <roboro@auto-trol.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:31:34 -0700
Message-ID: <BC0ED9AF75BE394D8256087283FD988701F87975@is3a.auto-trol.com>
To: 'Lofton Henderson' <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: public-webcgm@w3.org

Dear Lofton,

I agree with the Working Group's response resolution to my WebCGM 2.1 Last
Call comment. I'd like to thank you and the Working Group for your attention
to this issue.

Best regards,

Rob

Rob Orosz
Senior Software Engineer
Auto-trol Technology
11030 CirclePoint Road
Suite 450
Westminster, CO. 80020
(303) 252-2262
http://www.auto-trol.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 11:08 AM
To: Robert Orosz
Cc: public-webcgm@w3.org
Subject: Response to WebCGM 2.1 Last Call comment: T.14.4 and T.14.5 


Dear Rob ,

The WebCGM Working Group has reviewed the comment you sent [1] about the 
WebCGM 2.1 Last Call Working Draft [2] published on 18 September 
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/2008Sep/0001.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/
_____________________________________________________________
* Comment Sent: Thu, 18 Sep 2008
* Archived:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2008Sep/0001.html

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

SUMMARY of your comment:

>T.14.4 and T.14.5 of the WebCGM 2.1 profile specify the maximum lengths of 
>graphical and non-graphical text strings respectively. Unfortunately, the 
>limits are given in bytes. This unfairly penalizes users who choose UTF-16 
>character encoding for their text strings. Their limit is half the number 
>of characters that a user choosing ISO Latin1 gets.
>
>An example of the impact this has is in the Metafile Description. Our 
>software does not output a Date substring if the user chooses UTF-16 
>character encoding for non-graphical text strings because doing so would 
>violate the (byte) limit specified in T.14.5.
>
>[...continued...: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2008Oct/0000.html]
>
>As the simplest and most expedient solution to the problem identified in 
>my previous message, I propose simply doubling the byte limit for both 
>graphical and non-graphical text strings. Note that the latter has two 
>subclasses, one dealing with standalone strings and one for strings within 
>a data record (type D). Also note that ISO/IEC 8632-1:1999/Cor.2:2007(E) 
>specifies that the latter subclass also includes the structured data 
>record (type SDR). Both table cells in T.14.5 should be changed to reflect 
>that corrigendum.
>
>Summary:
>
>Maximum string length (bytes) for type S: 508 (T.14.4)
>Maximum string length (bytes) for type SF: 508 (T.14.5)
>Maximum string length (bytes) for type SF within type D and within type 
>SDR: 2048
>
>This solution addresses the specific use case that I mentioned (Metafile 
>Description).

RESPONSE to your comment:

>WebCGM will make these changes:
>
>1.) Modify T.14.4, T.14.5 with the specific changes, as proposed by you, 
>to double the limits in question;
>2.) fix the table cells in T.14.5 per your "note" about ISO/IEC 
>8632-1:1999/Cor.2:2007(E).

--------------------------- end -------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2008 18:32:21 GMT

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