Fwd: Re: [LC Review] of WebCGM 2.0

Here are my opinions with regards to these comments:

comment 1: yes, "OASIS CGM Open ..." should be removed from <title>.

comment 2: as Felix points out, we have two references to Unicode...
Unicode and Unicode-401. However, I couldn't find Unicode-401 anywhere
in the specification, the closest I could find was [Unicode40]
in Chapter 3 (which we don't have in the reference section). One
reference to Unicode should suffice, no? The generic one.

comment 3: possibly a bit more tricky... I suspect the default is
IsoLatin 1 for legacy reasons. What would be the harm in making the
default UTF-8? As for 'character encoding' instead of 'character set',
I suspect we kept the same wording as CGM:1999. More thoughts anyone
on this one?

-- 
Regards,
 Benoit                            mailto:benoit@itedo.com


 
This is a forwarded message
From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
Date: Friday, July 7, 2006, 10:55:27 AM
Subject: [LC Review] of WebCGM 2.0

===8<==============Original message text===============

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


===8<===========End of original message text===========