- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:59:52 +0900
- To: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Cc: public-webcgm@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org
- Message-ID: <44C03518.7000101@w3.org>
Hello Thierry, Thank you very much for your reply. I am satisfied with your resolutions. If you don't here anything else from the i18n core WG, please regard these issues as closed. Regards, Felix. Thierry MICHEL wrote: > 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 Friday, 21 July 2006 02:00:03 UTC