- From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 19:23:25 +0100
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- CC: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>, public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
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/ ? Yes that is the latest and updated WebCGM 1.0 Second Release Recommendation. Would you want to link it to the first edition ? http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-WebCGM-19990121 > > 3.) The comma after "2001" seems extraneous. Yes I agree. I just removed it. see http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/Group/2006/REC-webcgm20-20070115/ > > 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.) OK. > > Regards, > -Lofton. > > >
Received on Monday, 8 January 2007 18:23:45 UTC