- From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:46:02 +0100
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- CC: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Lofton Henderson wrote: > > All -- > > Here is a compendium of LC Review comments for WebCGM 2.1. We received > 4 comments altogether, all of which came from the CGM community. > > We have recorded two of 'em here: > [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/03/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html Actually there are 4 comments listed. - two are recorded as "Formal comments" - and two more are listed as "should we include these as Formal comments" getObjectExtent() and gzip-compression Maybe we should discuss this at the telecon. > > 1.) SF limit should be bigger: > [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/03/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html#Issue1 > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2008Sep/0001.html > > 2.) Name of the WebCGMRect::union method is problematic: > [4] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/03/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html#Issue2 > [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Oct/0000.html > > And there are two more that are not yet recorded in [1] > > 3.) Wording clarification for getObjectExtent(): > [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Oct/0015.html > > 4.) Scope of normativity of gzip-compression requirement: > [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Oct/0020.html > > Regards, > -Lofton. > >
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 08:47:00 UTC