- From: Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:57:01 -0400
- To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
I'm ok with the proposals. -- Regards, Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com Tuesday, July 18, 2006, 1:30:40 PM, Lofton Henderson wrote: > 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. > [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.
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2006 13:57:05 UTC