Re: SOTD action item on WebCGM 1.0

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