- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 10:23:41 -0700
- To: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>, <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
At 02:05 PM 1/4/2007 -0800, Cruikshank, David W wrote: >[...] >Anyway, to handle the status of WebCGM 1.0, I would propose a paragraph >added like the following: > >"WebCGM 1.0 functionality is mostly a subset of WebCGM 2.0 >functionality, with a few exceptions (e.g., feature deprecation) as >described in this WebCGM 2.0 text. While WebCGM 1.0 remains a valid >specification, primarily to support existing data, use of WebCGM 2.0 >viewers and authoring tools is encouraged." I like Dave's paragraph much better than my original draft. I have a couple of minor suggestions/questions: 1.) The first sentence (my original) is awkward. Tighter: "With a few exceptions such as feature deprecations, WebCGM 1.0 functionality is a subset of WebCGM 2.0 functionality." 2.) Should "WebCGM 1.0 Recommendation" hyperlink to http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-WebCGM-20011217/ ? 3.) The comma after "2001" seems extraneous. 4.) About "primarily to support existing data": is it just data, or "data and applications"? (I don't know ... I haven't thought it through carefully.) Thoughts? (Let's discuss and finalize in email before editing the SoTD.) Regards, -Lofton.
Received on Monday, 8 January 2007 17:24:09 UTC