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

Re: [Draft] Response to Last Call comment

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:56:37 -0400
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0908130656q7a9d154ao6ea754fe986f88f7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: public-webcgm@w3.org
Dear Lofton,

Please find my answer inside the email

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>wrote:

> Dear Mohamed,
>
> The WebCGM Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] about the
> WebCGM 2.1 Second Last Call Working Draft [2] published on 04 June 2009.
>  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.  Please reply before 17 August 2009, and let us know
> whether you accept the WG response or not.  If we receive no reply from you
> by August 17, then we will default your reply to "WebCGM WG response
> accepted."
>
> In case you do not accept the WG response, 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/2009Jun/0002.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webcgm21-20090604/
> _____________________________________________________________
> * Comment Sent: Sat, 20 Jun 2009
> * Archived:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2009Jun/0002.html
> The WebCGM WG has the following responses to your comment:
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> SUMMARY of your first comment:
> 1 == 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.
>
> RESPONSE to your first comment:
> The WebCGM Working Group (WG) agrees that WebCGM could potentially benefit
> by addition of a normative schema -- XML Schema or Relax NG. Unfortunately,
> this proposal is beyond the scope of this 2nd LCWD review, and it is deemed
> to be too late in the WebCGM 2.1 development cycle. Ideally, such a proposal
> would have been included in the WebCGM 2.1 Requirements, or before 1st LCWD
> review at latest. The implementation of such a proposal would involve major
> disruption of the WebCGM 2.1 text -- removal of the DTD and complete
> rewriting of Chapter 4 (at least). Since it does not address an error in the
> specification, or a serious defect, or violation of any W3C requirement, the
> WG believes that the proposal should be postponed until a future WebCGM
> development cycle.


Fair enough. I was not suggesting removing the DTD

>
>
> As an interim step, the WG thinks that a non-normative Technical Note,
> separate from the progression of 2.1 WebCGM, might be an interesting
> approach. The WG would also welcome an initial contribution, if you have
> interest in making such.


That's seems exactly what I proposed. I'm sorry since I don't have any
initial contribution, but I will be happy to give it a try or to review them
with care


>
>
>
> SUMMARY of your second comment:
> 2 == interaction between WebCGM and CSS ==
> Is it possible to consider the role that could play CSS vis  vis WebCGM ?
>
> RESPONSE to your second comment:
> Potential relationships between WebCGM and CSS were studied in some detail
> [3] prior to the WebCGM 2.0 standardization. This study [3] developed a
> detailed model and showed the technical feasibility for a rich application
> of CSS-like styling to WebCGM.
> [3] http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/stylable_cgm_submitted_0324.pdf
>

Is it possible to consider adding an informative note on that work in the
spec (with one or two sentence along), if it is not already there ?


>
> Despite the technical feasibility, the WebCGM 2.0 authors and constituents
> agreed that the the principal WebCGM use cases did not justify the cost and
> implementation effort of such a full-featured normative CSS capability in
> WebCGM. Therefore normative CSS-like style sheets were not further pursued.
>
> Nevertheless, whenever possible, applicable features and characteristics of
> CSS were followed in the design of WebCGM 2.0, especially the new DOM-based
> Style Properties feature. For example the inheritance model of CSS was
> adapted directly into the Style Properties inheritance model (section 5.4),
> and there are a number of other examples of functionality borrowed
> more-or-less directly from CSS.


Thanks for your answers

Regards,

Mohamed
-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 13:57:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 August 2009 13:57:18 GMT