Re: webCGM 2.1 first draft

Hi Thierry,

Thanks for your early work on our 2.1 draft.  It looks like it is very 
close to publishable in its present state, other than the couple broken links.

I have embedded a couple more comments in your message...

At 02:12 PM 8/19/2008 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:

>I have checked the webCGM 2.1 draft at
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/Overview.html
>
>
>A- It conforms to the pubrules checker [1]

Great!  I haven't had time to do that yet, but I did check validity and 
(most) links.


>we only need to
>1- request a new short name to the Director
>http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm21/ (1 occurrence)

You will do this, right?  (Or is this something I should do?)


>2- specify an end  date for the Last Call review (format DD Month YYYY) in 
>the SOTD.
>I would suggest to write 10 November 2008 (just before our F2F)

That is probably a good choice -- it leaves 2 weeks before the F2F.

I wonder ... is it a better idea to start later (than mid-Sept) and have LC 
review be closer to 4 weeks?  Or is it a better idea to start in mid-Sept 
and have it be 6-8 weeks?

(This is something we might talk about.)



>B- I have also checked validate XHTML validation. All files successfully 
>checked as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
>
>C- Finally I checked for broken links whith the linkchecker [2] . A couple 
>of  broken fragments to be fixed  (For more details refer to [3]).
>
>------
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/webcgm-v2.1-index.html
>     What to do: The link is broken. Fix it NOW!
>     Response status code: 404
>     Response message: Not Found
>     Lines: 64, 65
>
>     Broken fragments and their line numbers:
>         abstract: 64
>         Authors: 65
>
>http://validator.w3.org/check/referer
>
>------
>
>I have not yet read the all document, but just a first comment:
>
>I suggest to better highlight what is new in webCGM 2.1, as we would like 
>people to comment during Last Call review only about new features 
>introduced in *2.1*.

Good idea!  It will take a little work, but worth it I think.



>This could be done for example with a background styling color for new 
>sections/paragraphs introduced in webCGM 2.1. (Of course we could remove 
>it latter on, in CR if needed).

Hmmm... I need to try to remember now, about how much significant 
new/modified text there is.  I guess one could run an HTML comparison tool, 
but it would mark way too much stuff.  We really only want the significant 
/ substantive changes.

So maybe a combination of:  I could use the Change Log to guide me, where 
to manually apply the "whats-new-2.1" style; and/or we could run a 
comparison and eliminate the trivial differences (and mark the significant 
ones).

http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Appendix.html#webcgm_changelog


>Or have links to new sections in the [4] "what is new" Appendix.

Yes, that Appendix needs work.  It was put together hastily.  Needs more 
detail, and links would be good.

>I would also have in the  "1. Introduction to WebCGM" chapter a "What is 
>new in WebCGM 2.1" section with at least a link to the "what is new" 
>Appendix. for people reading the intro to have a quick glance of what's new.

Good idea also.

>Thanks for this great work Lofton. Once the WebCGM WG CfP is lunched, I 
>will request the webcgm21 short name and we will be ready for publication.
>
>And congratulation  to the TC for your specification work.

Thanks for your help and helpful suggestions on this!

-Lofton.

Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 00:44:10 UTC