- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:05:35 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- CC: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
Lofton Henderson wrote: comments-email that contains multiple comments. We can use our own issue tracker for each sub comments, if you think to have an atomic view. But we should answer the requester a single mail with all responses to each comments. It will definitively ease the tracking of response and agreement from requester. > Thanks, Thierry, for your initial efforts here. > > I have a question about how we will manage a comments-email that > contains multiple comments. Felix's email contains three comments, for > example. In this case, he labels them all as editorial. > > In general, do we want to treat each email as one issue, e.g., as you > have labelled them collectively "Issue 1" in the draft DoC document > (below)? Or, do we want to use the Tracker Web interface to generate > separate issues, which each one points to the common archived comment > message as the source, and which perhaps have some embedded copy-paste > or paraphrasing of the issue? > > My instinct is that we want to separate potentially significant issues, > each into its own Tracker issue. Perhaps for multiple simple or > editorial issues, we can have a single multi-part issue derived from the > commentor's collective email message. > > Thoughts, anyone? > > -Lofton. > > At 04:55 PM 7/7/2006 +0200, Thierry MICHEL wrote: > >> WEB CGM WG Colleagues >> >> Here is our first Last Call comment on WEbCGM 2.0. >> It is incorporated into the Disposition of comments document for WebCGM >> 2.0 Last Call. >> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/03/WebCGM2-LastCallResponses.html >> >> Note that this Disposition of Comment is currently a Member restricted >> document and an editor's copy. >> >> I will be tracking comments as they come in. >> >> Thierry. >> >> >> >> Felix Sasaki wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > These are comments on >> > >> > WebCGM 2.0, http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/ >> > >> > sent on behalf of the i18n core working group. >> > >> > Best regards, Felix Sasaki. >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > 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 . >> >> >> -- >> Thierry Michel >> W3C > > -- Thierry Michel W3C
Received on Friday, 7 July 2006 23:06:01 UTC