- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 07:50:52 -0600
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
At 11:37 AM 7/19/2006 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote: >On Wednesday, July 19, 2006, 10:49:56 AM, Thierry wrote: > >TM> Lofton, > >TM> If we agree to these comments during tomorrow's teleconf (I will >TM> attend), I will update the "WebCGM 2.0 Last Call Disposition of >TM> comments" document >TM> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/03/WebCGM2-LastCallResponses.html > >I think its worth making them three separate comments, too, rather than >one comment with three parts. > >Lofton,are you going to be on this Fridays Hypertext CG call?it would be >good to remind other groups of the last call and the deadline,and try to >get them to respond (or to say they won't review,or have no comments). Unfortunately, I will be on an airplane at the time. Takeoff 1/2 hour before HCG telecon, landing well after the telecon. Can you possibly do this for us, in my absence? -Lofton. >TM> and will send a mail to issuer Felix Sasaki >TM> <fsasaki@w3.org> copying I18N and public-webcgm@w3.org lists. > > > > > >> > >> WebCGM WG -- > >> > >> Here are draft replies to the three i18n-core comments. > >> > >> Comments and suggestions are welcome... > >> > >> At 10:52 PM 7/7/2006 +0900, 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. > >> > >> PROPOSAL for Comment 1: > >> Agreed, we will fix it. Thanks for catching this. The <title> elements > >> should match the text that immediately precedes the horizontal rule at > >> the top of each chapter. > >> > >>> 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. > >> > >> PROPOSAL for Comment 2: > >> Originally we had considered that both generic and specific were > >> appropriate, as described in CharMod C063 [1] (and its immediately > >> preceding comment). Upon further discussion, the WebCGM WG believes > >> that generic alone suffices. The References will be changed to contain > >> only the generic reference. > >TM> The References/ The reference > >> > >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#C063 > >> > >>> 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 . > >> > >> PROPOSAL for Comment 3: > >> The basic reason is "legacy". WebCGM 2.0 is an upgrade of WebCGM 1.0, > >> which is a profile of ISO CGM:1999. In ISO CGM:1999 (and :1992, :1987 > >> before it), the default is isolatin1. Because the default is implicit > >> (nothing in the CGM file declares it), and because of the mechanism > >> which ISO CGM specifies for changing to a non-default character encoding > >> for a metafile instance, in fact it would be technically ill-specified > >> (i.e., unimplementable) for a profile such as WebCGM 2.0 to prescribe > >> that the implicit default is other than isolatin1. > >> > >> We agree that WebCGM 2.0 should use the proper terminology, "character > >> encoding", where ever possible. In some places it is not possible, such > >> as the proper names of ISO CGM:1999 elements (e.g., "CHARACTER SET > >> LIST"). But we will make appropriate changes in the descriptive, prose > >> parts of the profile. > >> > >> > >> -Lofton. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >-- > Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org > Interaction Domain Leader > Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group > W3C Graphics Activity Lead > Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2006 13:51:15 UTC