Re: Chris's _replace comment

Follow-up to today's telecon discussion, and a proposed new wording.

If you disagree with anything in here, PLEASE OBJECT NOW -- I believe that 
I'm summarizing what was apparently unanimous agreement in the telecon.

OVERVIEW:

Okay, Benoit explains below why he doesn't like how the paragraph works (or 
doesn't) with the Chris's simple deletion of the beginning of the last 
sentence.  We agreed that his objection has some merit -- the paragraph 
starts to unravel and introduce more ambiguity.

On the other hand, I objected to Benoit's solution, because it starts to 
hint at revised conformance requirements, which crosses the line into 
substantive (we all agree -- no substantive changes).

In the telecon, we had consensus about this:

*** the basic intent of this wording (in the _replace paragraph) from 
WebCGM 1.0 is that WebCGM viewers MUST handle CGM-to-CGM links with 
_replace as described.

*** WebCGM 2.0 does not intend to expand the "MUST" conformance requirement 
to any other target formats.

So I will make a proposal that I claim embodies the intended interpretation 
of the existing _replace text, and is editorial because it does not alter 
the conformance requirements that we agree are intended by the present wording.

PROPOSAL:

[[[
_replace
When _replace occurs on a CGM-to-CGM link, a WebCGM viewer shall replace 
the current CGM picture by the designated CGM picture in the same 
rectangular area in the same frame as the picture which refers to this 
target. If the ending resource (CGM) is the same as the linking resource, 
the viewer shall not reload the resource. This is the default behavior for 
such links.
]]]

I don't claim it is a perfect solution, but I do claim that it is:  1.) a 
minimally disruptive change that also...  2.) removes the offensive (to 
Chris) implication that _replace concept is unique to WebCGM; and, 3.) does 
not change the conformance requirements of the current text.

Objections?

PROCESS & TIMING:

We also agreed today, that we want one of two outcomes going forward, in 
this order of preference:

a.) either we get consensus on a change that is unanimously agreed to be 
editorial, to satisfy Chris's comment, by 6th November (when lock-down is 
anticipated on OASIS spec);

b.) otherwise our WG response should be "no change for now", and we will 
postpone addressing the comment till after REC (in errata phase), or future 
versions.  (As Benoit observed, this is still a pretty active topic 
elsewhere in W3C.)

Agreed?

Regards,
-Lofton.


At 10:58 AM 10/26/2006 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:

>I don't really like the sentence: "This is the default behavior for
>such links."
>
>What does _such links_ refer to? It's confusing.
>
>What not say something like:
>"This is the default behavior for CGM-to-CGM links."
>
>It doesn't prevent CGM-to-SVG links (or vice versa), if such
>implementation exists.
>
>Also, I find the first sentence _very_ confusing: "The viewer shall
>replace the current CGM picture by the designated CGM picture same
>rectangular area in the same frame as the picture which refers to this
>target."
>
>I think only a handful of people can understand that sentence; maybe
>I'm stupid.
>
>Is that what is meant: "The viewer shall replace in the same
>frame and same rectangular area of current CGM picture by the
>linked content." (This is easier for me to understand).
>
>I agree that all of this is editorial, all intentions remain the same.
>
>Benoit.
>
>
>Tuesday, October 24, 2006, 7:15:19 PM, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>
> > [...changing list to the WG list, for discussion...]
>
> > This topic will be on the telecon agenda for Thursday.  Please feel free to
> > discuss on this list in advance.
>
> > Chris notes that the last sentence of WebCGM's discussion of the "_replace"
> > picture behavior ignores that SVG also supports this value.  His suggested
> > solution is to delete the first part of the last sentence, which would 
> leave...
>
> > [[[
> > _replace
> > The viewer shall replace the current CGM picture by the designated CGM
> > picture same rectangular area in the same frame as the picture
> > which refers to this target. If the ending resource (CGM) is the same as
> > the linking resource, the viewer does not reload the resource. This is the
> > default behavior for such links.
> > ]]]
>
> > On the one hand, I agree with Chris that it is editorially inaccurate (or
> > ambiguous) as worded.  The word "applicable" is the problem, IMO.  As Chris
> > interpreted it, in the broadest sense, indeed "_replace" is also applicable
> > to C2S and S2C links (and S2S), not just C2C links.  On the other hand, one
> > could claim that we were thinking of "applicable" from the perspective of
> > required (conformance) capabilities of WebCGM 2.0 viewers, and therefore
> > its use could be defensible from that perspective.
>
> > My opinion, bottom line -- the imprecision of the word argues for the
> > removal of that phrase.  I would also venture that we did not intend to
> > *mandate* WebCGM 2.0 viewer support of anything other than C2C links, i.e.,
> > the mandatory WebCGM 2.0 viewer capability is unchanged from WebCGM
> > 1.0.  So whatever change we make should not imply any changed conformance
> > requirements.
>
> > So ... thoughts?  Does Chris's proposed change satisfy everyone?  And
> > equally importantly, is everyone satisfied that it is editorial?  (Anything
> > other than editorial is awkward / inadmissible, at PR stage!)
>
> > -Lofton.
>
> > At 04:38 PM 10/20/2006 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
>
> >>Hello public-webcgm,
> >>
> >>In picture behaviours:
> >>
> >>http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PR-webcgm20-20061017/WebCGM20-IC.html#webcgm_3 
> _1_2_2
> >>
> >>_replace
> >>     The viewer shall replace the current CGM picture by the designated
> >>     CGM picture same rectangular area in the same frame as the picture
> >>     which refers to this target. If the ending resource (CGM) is the
> >>     same as the linking resource, the viewer does not reload the
> >>     resource. Applicable only to CGM-to-CGM links, this is the default
> >>     behavior for such links.
> >>
> >>The last sentence is incorrect; since SVG also has an _replace value,
> >>then this value will apply to WebCGM-to-SVG links (and the corresponding
> >>value in SVG will apply to SVG-to-WebCGM links).
> >>
> >>Suggested change:
> >>
> >>s/Applicable only to CGM-to-CGM links, this/This/
> >>
> >>I believe that this is an editorial change and that this error is due to
> >>an oversight. In WebCGM 1,0, it was true that HTML did not have the
> >>value and thus WebCGM 1.0 was the only spec that had it. This has not
> >>been true since SVG 1.0 added the same value as WebCGM has.
> >>
> >>--
> >>  Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
> >>  Interaction Domain Leader
> >>  Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
> >>  W3C Graphics Activity Lead
> >>  Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG