- From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:02:46 +0100
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- CC: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, public-webcgm@w3.org
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 10:28:54 +0000 * Archived: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2008Nov/0004.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 5 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0811-webcgm/ Editorial/substantive: E/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: "These normalization rules are applicable for font names specified using the characters of ISOLatin1. They will likely be inapplicable for font names specified using other non-Latin characters." What happens in the case of Latin-2 (Eastern Europe), which is similar to Latin1 but contains a few additional characters. Does a single non-Latin1 character cause normalization to be abandoned for the whole string? It seems like the only thing that wouldn't apply to all non-Latin1 font names is converting to lower-case, though that is still a relevant consideration for many other Latin characters outside Latin1, and for Armenian, Greek and Cyrillic. Why restrict to Latin1? RESPONSE to your comment: The apparent restriction to Latin 1 was unintended. As you point out, the normalization would work the same if the same names were expressed in Latin 2. Latin 1 got the special mention because: 1.) the default character encoding of WebCGM is ISO 8859-1; and, 2.) the vast majority of current and legacy WebCGM instances use this character encoding and a restricted core set of thirteen specific font names. As pointed out in WebCGM's reply to I18N's issue #3, these WebCGM-specific normalization rules were targeted at the substantial volume of legacy and current metafiles that intend to invoke this restricted core set of fonts, but that contain well-known, trivial deviations in the construction of the names. In other words, the real target is trivially deviant usage of the 13 specific core-font names, regardless of the character encoding. (More background: the valid character encoding for any particular WebCGM instance is one of the three ISO 8859-1, unicode UTF-8, or unicode UTF-16.) WebCGM will reword to clarify the useful scope of these normalization rules, to remove the implication of a normative restriction of applicability, and instead to be advisory about the usefulness of that normalization outside of its primary intended scope. Replace the two quoted sentences in question (in the 9.3.2.2 description of 'cgmFont') with: "Note: These normalization rules are derived from and intended for the substantial volume of existing metafiles that aim to invoke fonts from WebCGM's restricted core set of thirteen specific fonts (see T.16.13 of @@section 6.5@@) and that contain well-known and trivial deviations in the construction of those font names. The rules may be less useful outside of that intended scope. The target metafiles of these normalizations are most often, but not always, encoded in WebCGM's default character encoding of ISO 8859-1." [Ed-note: @@section 6.5@@ denotes text "section 6.5" that links to "WebCGM21-Profile.html#webcgm_4_5", which in the LCWD version is: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-Profile.html#webcgm_4_5 ] --------------------------- end -------------------------------
Received on Friday, 19 December 2008 16:03:24 UTC