Re[2]: Fwd: Re: [LC Review] of WebCGM 2.0

Monday, July 10, 2006, 12:40:41 PM, Chris Lilley wrote:

> On Monday, July 10, 2006, 4:14:13 PM, Benoit wrote:

BB>> Here are my opinions with regards to these comments:

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

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

> I agree - especially if the references to a specific version are not
> actually used.
Ok.

>   C063 [S] A generic reference to the Unicode Standard MUST be made if
>   it is desired that characters allocated after a specification is
>   published are usable with that specification. A specific reference to
>   the Unicode Standard MAY be included to ensure that functionality
>   depending on a particular version is available and will not change
>   over time.
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-RefUnicode

BB>> comment 3: possibly a bit more tricky... I suspect the default is
BB>> IsoLatin 1 for legacy reasons. What would be the harm in making the
BB>> default UTF-8?

> Is the text ever used without an explicit indication of the character
> encoding? In other words, does content rely on the encoding being a
> particular default?
I think legacy should win here. This is CGM:1999 territory... I see
more harm than good from such a change (if doable).

> Its certainly easier to change the default now rather than later. Also,
> its off for the XML companion file to have one default encoding (UTF-8 or
> UTF-16) and the WebCGM to have a different one (Latin-1).
After thinking about it some more, I expect the long time CGM users
(Dave, Lofton, Dieter, Don etc...) to say "don't change the default".

BB>>  As for 'character encoding' instead of 'character set',
BB>> I suspect we kept the same wording as CGM:1999. More thoughts anyone
BB>> on this one?

> We should use the correct term, character encoding. Character set has a
> different meaning.
Right, I think Lofton has some ideas about this. Note that we can
change the WebCGM 2.0 wording, but not the PPF.

>   A character encoding scheme, together with the coded character sets it
>   is used with, is called a character encoding, and is identified by a
>   unique identifier, such as an IANA charset identifier.
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-Digital

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


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

BB>> ===8<==============Original message text===============

BB>> WEB CGM WG Colleagues

BB>> Here is our first Last Call comment on WEbCGM 2.0.
BB>> It is incorporated into the Disposition of comments document for WebCGM
BB>> 2.0 Last Call.
BB>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/03/WebCGM2-LastCallResponses.html

BB>> Note that this Disposition of Comment is currently a Member restricted
BB>> document and an editor's copy.

BB>> I will be tracking comments as they come in.

BB>> Thierry.



BB>> 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 .

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

This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected
by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or
any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and
delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

Received on Monday, 10 July 2006 17:29:46 UTC