- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 10:30:43 -0700
- To: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>, <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Oops, one correction... ignore point #2, I see that Thierry has already inserted the proper hyperlinks. -Lofton. At 10:23 AM 1/8/2007 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote: >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 17:31:02 UTC