- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:26:21 -0600
- To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
WebCGM WG --
The minutes are at
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/Minutes/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html
and also available as text, below.
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WebCGM Teleconference
30 Aug 2007
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Aug/0022.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-irc
Attendees
Present
Lofton, Thierry, Dave, Stuart
Regrets
Dieter, Chris, Don, Benoit
Chair
Lofton
Scribe
Dave
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]routine WG business
2. [6]WebCGM 1.0 errata
3. [7]next steps
* [8]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Routine WG business
None
WebCGM 1.0 errata
General questions
E09: drawing model descriptions of 1.0 & 2.0
lofton - since this erratum is rejected, should it be moved to
bottom of the errata or deleted?
thierry - if it's from inside the working group we need to get
agreement from the reporter
<thierry> if the comment is from outside of the WebCGM WG we should
mention it in rejected section
lofton - since the source of the errata is lofton, we can reject it
with his agreement and delete it.
Resolution: E09 is rejected and removed
E08: confusion about multiple viewers, 'name' in <object> and
<param>
<thierry> E08: should add a link to WebCGM 2.0 showing proper
solution using 2.0 DOM. This erratum does not affect 2.0
<thierry> Resolution: All errata content are accepted, as there is
no comment from the WG
<lofton> Discussion about class:
[9]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Aug/0026
.html
[9]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Aug/0026.html
thierry - if we choose to publish errata as Class 3, it requires a
public review
thierry - after a one month review of the errata, we are supposed to
publish a new recommendataion
lofton - it's not clear from reading the process document that a new
recommendation is required
thierry - in our charter we indicated an intention of publishing a
new recommendation
<lofton> 7.6.3 says:
<lofton> While the second approach is designed so that a Working
Group can establish normative corrections quickly, it does not
obviate the need to incorporate changes into an edited version of
the Recommendation. In particular, when corrections are numerous or
complex, integrating them into a single document is important for
interoperability; readers might otherwise interpret the corrections
differently.
lofton - since it is unlikely that WebCGM 1.0 will be picked up for
implementation, it might suffice to just publish the errata instead
of the whole recommendation
lofton - republishing 1.0 might involve a lot of work to bring up to
current W3C pubrules and that work is probably unnecessary
lofton - we don't need to make this decision right now, but it's
something to consider
thierry - it's up to the working group to decide whether to just
publish the errata or a new recommendation
<thierry> Quoting from the Charter: Collect and publish any pending
WebCGM 1.0 errata. If required, collect these together and publish a
WebCGM 1.0 third release.
<thierry>
[10]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/webcgm-charter.html#coordination
[10] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/webcgm-charter.html#coordination
lofton - since we are missing 4 members, we need to open an email
discussion to document the way forward on the republishing issue
The current participants agree to only publishing the errata
<thierry> The 4 people present during the call agree that an errata
poage would suffice. Not need to publish a WebCGM 1.0 third release.
<scribe> ACTION: lofton will send out an email to get agreement from
the whole WG [recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action01]
[11] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action01
E01: clarification of non-URI characters, IRIs, RFC-2396/3986
lofton - how much detail do we need to put into the errata document
to specify the actual change?
<trackbot-ng> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from
[12]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/track/
[12] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/track/
thierry - there are no formal guidelines of how to do it. It just
needs to be clear
lofton - understands what to do now
<thierry> use links when it is clear enough like in E01 second item
"Replace the entire WebCGM 1.0 section 3.1.1.4, including title,
with the entire WebCGM 2.0 section 3.1.1.4."
<thierry> else should copy paragraph to be changed and show new
paragrah with changed text
RESOLUTION: E01 is class 2
<thierry> REsolution: E01 seems like a class 2
E02: editorial errors in 3.4 <OBJECT> specification
<scribe> ACTION: lofton to record 2.0 erratum regarding case
sensitivity [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action02]
[13] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action02
An explicit sentence to the effect that the value of the param
attributes is case insensitive
<thierry> <OBJECT DATA="xxx.cgm"
TYPE="image/cgm;Version=4;ProfileId=WebCGM" WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="100"
/> would be the proper writing
<trackbot-ng> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from
[14]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/track/
[14] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/track/
RESOLUTION: E02 is class 2
E03: correction (->example) of text search matching in para
(3.2.1.3)
RESOLUTION: E03 is class 2
<thierry> RESOLUTION: E03 is a clarification
E04: alignment of 3.3 & 3.1.2.3 regarding 'name' occurrence in
'para' & 'subpara'
RESOLUTION: E04 is class 2
E05: clarification of viewer handling of MITRE LIMIT
RESOLUTION: E05 is class 3
E06: contradictory specifications of object behaviors in 3.1.2.4 &
3.2.1.1
RESOLUTION: E06 is class 3
E07: ambiguous applicability of "128" limit in CLOSED FIGURE (PPF)
RESOLUTION: E07 is class 2
E08: confusion about multiple viewers, 'name' in <object> and
<param>
RESOLUTION: E08 is class 2 since the paragraph is non-normative that
is beyond the scope of 1.0
E09: drawing model descriptions of 1.0 & 2.0
RESOLUTION: rejected and deleted
thierry - suggest we move E12 to E09 to avoid a gap
E10: deviations of WebCGM 1.0 Model Profile from normative ISO CGM
standard
defer until lofton has done his work on evaluating the tables
E11: ambiguity on position of radius in degenerate elliptical arc
close
<scribe> ACTION: lofton to complete evaluation on E10 [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action03]
[15] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action03
RESOLUTION: E11 is class 2
E12: broken contact address for problem reports
We will move this to E09
RESOLUTION: E12 is class 1
<thierry> E12 is class 1 and will be renumbered E09 (replacing the
deleted E09)
<trackbot-ng> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from
[16]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/track/
[16] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/track/
next steps
next telecon 2 weeks from today
target of telecon is final WG approval for the WebCGM 1.0 errata
document (which then goes for 4-week public review)
also on the agenda for the next meeting, try to come to closure on
dispostion of errata for 2.0
<thierry> Thierry sends regrets for the next telecon 2 weeks from
today
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: lofton to complete evaluation on E10 [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: lofton to record 2.0 erratum regarding case
sensitivity [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: lofton will send out an email to get agreement from
the whole WG [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action01]
[17] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action03
[18] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action02
[19] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action01
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version 1.128
([21]CVS log)
$Date: 2007/08/30 21:22:07 $
_________________________________________________________
[20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13
Check for newer version at [22]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002
/scribe/
[22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
Found Scribe: davec
Inferring ScribeNick: davec
Found ScribeNick: davec
WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Dave_Cruikshank E01 E02 E03 E04 E05 E06 E07 E08 E09 E
10 E11 E12 Lofton_Henderson Thierry davec lofton scribenick trackbot-ng
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
<dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
<dbooth> Present+ amy
WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Dieter, Chris, Don
)
Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the li
st,
such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Ben
Regrets: Ben
Agenda: [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Au
g/0022.html
Got date from IRC log name: 30 Aug 2007
Guessing minutes URL: [24]http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.h
tml
People with action items: an email lofton out send will
[23]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Aug/0022.html
[24] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html
WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
End of [25]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
[25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 21:25:57 UTC