RE: Math WG comments on latest CDF documents

To be more specific on how this is being tracked:

Since this was originally marked as a disagree from the first LC and then 
it was reraised during our second LC, we are not tracking it as 2 
disagrees.  Only the one [1] against the first LC for comments.

Thanks,
Steve Speicher

[1] See LC1-104 in 
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/2006/LC_Comments/CDRFWICDLC.xml

I wrote on 01/03/2007 01:58:07 PM:

> 
> Ron,
> 
> For the record, the CDF WG has resolved not to make any changes in the 
> current referenced public drafts regarding this issue.   The WG does not 

> feel we can define the adequate level of specification needed given the 
> timeframe and scope with the current drafts.  The WG has recorded your 
> disagreement with this resolution.
> 
> This does not prohibit anyone from defining extensions or profiles that 
> include MathML or introducing the capabilities that you have outlined. 
We 
> have left the issue open internally and will attempt to continue to 
> collaborate on a solution to this issue in future works.
> 
> Thanks for your feedback,
> Steve Speicher
> On behalf of the CDF WG
> 
> "Ron Ausbrooks" <ron.ausbrooks@mackichan.com> wrote on 11/14/2006 
01:34:33 
> AM:
> 
> > 
> > Steve, and the CDF WG,
> > 
> > Thank you for your response to the Math WG's comments. Unfortunately, 
we
> > don't feel that our concerns are adequately addressed by it.
> > 
> > We'd be happy to contribute to a MathML-based profile based on the
> > compound-by-inclusion framework. However, MathML may also appear as a 
> child
> > document by reference (via an <object>), and we don't feel that the 
> current
> > draft provides the necessary support. While restricting consideration 
of
> > layout issues to scalable elements is fine for the SVG-centered 
profile
> > documents (WICD Full and WICD Mobile), it seems inappropriate for a 
> general
> > compound document framework. Some brief discussion of layout 
negotiation 
> for
> > objects which are not scalable should appear in the WICD Core 
document, 
> or
> > perhaps even in the Document Object Model section of the CDR Framework
> > document.
> > 
> > Our specific suggestion is to include a specification like the 
> following:
> >   "The Document Object Model for a child document SHOULD make 
available 
> to
> > the parent methods to return the width, height and depth (or 'baseline
> > offset') of the child content."
> > Such a stipulation would codify handling of <object> that has been 
> supported
> > already by some user agents, and has allowed scripting to provide 
> reasonable
> > display of inline MathML. On the other hand, we see publication of 
these
> > recommendations without such a provision as implying a step backward.
> > 
> > We don't believe that leaving such considerations for a MathML-based 
> profile
> > is the best course, as we don't believe they apply only to MathML. Any 

> child
> > document which gives rise to text-like content needs the same sort of
> > support.
> > 
> > If you believe that a provision of this sort is beyond the scope of 
> these
> > recommendations, then it seems that that scope excludes essential
> > interoperability requirements of MathML objects (and other text-like
> > objects). We feel that you should in this case remove mention of 
support 
> for
> > MathML and examples of MathML from them for now, as in our opinion 
these 
> are
> > currently misleading. In particular, the section delineating the scope 

> of
> > the CDR Framework document includes the text:
> >   "While it is clearly meant to serve as the basis for integrating 
W3C's
> > family of XML formats within its Interaction Domain (e.g., CSS, 
MathML, 
> ..."
> > We believe that it's misleading to imply that the Framework as 
currently
> > written is usable for a wide variety of languages, and specifically 
for
> > MathML. 
> > 
> > In any event, we ask that layout (size) negotiation for text-like 
child
> > documents be added as a formal requirement for the Compound Document 
by
> > Inclusion work. We would suggest that the CDR Framework document 
> explicitly
> > state that automatic size negotiation between parent and child is not
> > currently supported by CDR but will be addressed in CDI; this 
> negotiation
> > should then include access to the baseline of child content.
> > 
> > Thanks very much for your consideration.
> > 
> > Ron Ausbrooks on behalf of the Math Working Group
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 13:14:37 UTC