Response to WebCGM 2.1 Last Call comment: i18n comment 3: Different normalizations

Dear Richard,

The WebCGM Working Group has reviewed the comment you sent [1] about the 
WebCGM 2.1 Last Call Working Draft [2] published on 02 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,
Thierry Michel, WebCGM WG Team Contact.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Oct/0000.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/
_____________________________________________________________
* Comment Sent: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:28:28 +0000
* Archived:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2008Nov/0003.html

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

SUMMARY of your comment:
Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-Config.html#ACI-fontmap

Comment 3
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0811-webcgm/
Editorial/substantive: S
Tracked by: RI

Location in reviewed document:
9.3.2.2 
[http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-Config.html#ACI-maplist]

Comment:

Why is the normalization for cgmFont different from that for 
substitutionList?

RESPONSE to your comment:

This was a deliberate choice. The 'cgmFont' normalization defines, 
before the string-match comparison is performed, how to prepare both the 
font name extracted from WebCGM instance and the parameter value of the 
'cgmFont' attribute. The rule is based on extensive real-world usage of 
CGM and WebCGM, both current usage and legacy usage. The WebCGM 
specification itself (T.16.13 of section 6.5 [1]) has since 1999 
required a core set of fonts, or their metric equivalents, with names 
such as "Helvetica-BoldOblique". But the specifications allowed no 
trivial variations (e.g., blanks, underscore-for-hyphen, etc), other 
than "case insensitive". In reality, there is now a large legacy of 
files that conform to profiles closely related to WebCGM (e.g., ATA) but 
that have trivial difference in these names, or that are WebCGM 
instances with trivially erroneous variations on the names. The purpose 
of the 'cgmFont' normalization is to enable the application of the font 
substitution mechanism to this substantial legacy of CGM instances.

On the other hand, the 'substitutionList' attribute of the WebCGM 
specification defines the set of fonts from which a substitute is to be 
selected. This font substitution mechanism is a new feature of WebCGM, 
and so there is no legacy to consider for 'substitutionList'. The best 
design of syntax and mechanism, and one that is already used by some 
WebCGM constituents in other contexts, comes from the CSS 2.0 
specification. This was therefore closely adapted to the needs of WebCGM 
2.1's font substitution mechanism.

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-Profile.html#webcgm_4_5



--------------------------- end -------------------------------

Received on Friday, 19 December 2008 15:54:03 UTC