- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:27:50 -0700
- To: "Bezaire, Benoit" <bbezaire@ptc.com>, "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
At 11:15 AM 11/20/2008 -0500, Bezaire, Benoit wrote: >Resolve them without me. We have started on them. We expect that there will be more email comments on the threads as a result of today's telecon. Anything that we can close definitively by the end of 04-dec telecon will be included in the response to 1st Last Call. Else it will be resolved in the WG internal development period between 1st LC and a 2nd LC in a couple months. >About the 'locus'... In my opinion, the wording of getObjectExtent() is >underspecified. No two implementation will return the same bounding box >for a given set of APS. That's my opinion. I'm trying to propose ways to >clarify the wording by removing 'locus' or defining 'locus'. > >You seem to like that word (locus), I don't. Yes. If I can summarize today's telecon discussion: the majority seem comfortable with the use of 'locus' without a Glossary entry; however, a specific wording proposal for revised wording in the getObjectExtent() wording and/or for a Glossary entry would be welcome. Will you take the action item to draft such? >With the current wording, it's still unclear in my opinion if bezier >control points are included or not. Then I would assume you have the same issue about the centerpoint of a CIRCULAR ARC CENTER element, for example? In both cases, the points are parameters that are used to define the set of points that comprise the graphical primitive, but are not a part of it. -Lofton. >-----Original Message----- >From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] >Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:57 AM >To: Bezaire, Benoit; WebCGM WG >Subject: RE: [Agenda] WebCGM telecon: Thursday, 20 November 2008 (DRAFT) > >At 09:59 AM 11/20/2008 -0500, Bezaire, Benoit wrote: > > >[...] > >I can't make it. I have another important meeting to attend. > >Since all of the "Active new threads" have come from you, what would you >propose that we do with them? Resolve them in your absence? Or >postpone them till you can be present? > > > >Could we put 'locus' in the Glossary section? > >IMO, it's not necessary -- WebCGM has gotten along without it for 10 >years (in ch.6 Profile). But I don't much care. > >If someone will take the action to propose a definition, and it is >approved by the WG, then I guess it will go in. (As Google shows, >almost any math glossary defines it.) > >-Lofton. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org > >[mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lofton Henderson > >Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 5:25 PM > >To: WebCGM WG > >Subject: [Agenda] WebCGM telecon: Thursday, 20 November 2008 (DRAFT) > > > > > > > >Hello WebCGM WG, > > > >If you can't attend this week's WG teleconference, please reply (to > >list) with "regrets". > > > >Main topic: approval of LC Review resolutions. > > > >WebCGM, Thursday, 20 November 2008, 11:00am-12:30pm ET (logistics > >below, following agenda) > > > >Previous minutes > >===== > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Oct/0019.html > > > >Agenda > >===== > > > >Chair: Lofton > > > >Scribe: tbd > >(See: > >[0] > >http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/Group/scribing-guidelines.html > >) > > > >1.) roll call 11:00am ET, > > -- agenda: additions? > > -- any routine WG business? > > > >2.) Al Gilman questions & remarks [1] > > -- for next telecon? > > > >3.) LC Review completion and DoC [2] > > -- proposed completion around 04-dec > > -- comments logged so far [2] > > -- endorsement of Proposed Resolution for #1, #2, #3 [2] > > > >4.) I18N comments [7] > > -- editorial comments #1 & #2 [8] > > -- comments #3 & #4 -- normalization rules [9] > > -- comments #5 & #6 -- TBD. > > > >5.) Active new threads: > > -- process in (1st) LC, or after 1st LC closure? > > -- getObjectExtent "abstract locus" [4] > > -- getObjectExtent include 'viewcontext'? [5] > > -- setView() rectangles w/ different aspect ratio [6] > > -- setView() invalid or extreme rectangle [3] > > > >6.) Status & Forecast for test suite and implementations > > -- feedback from implementors & test writers > > -- anticipation of further comments > > -- Potential content, timing, and possibility of January F2F > > > >7.) Next telecon: 04 December 2008 > > > >8.) Adjourn > > > >[1] > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0023.html > >[2] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2008/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html > > > >[3] > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0036.html > >[4] > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0028.html > >[5] > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0029.html > >[6] > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0039.html > > > >[7] http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0811-webcgm/ > >[8] > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0046.html > >[9] > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Nov/0048.html > > > >Logistics > >---------- > >Zakim bridge +1 617-761-6200 (US) or +33.4.89.06.34.99 (France) > >code: 932246 ("WEBCGM") > >IRC, channel #webcgm > >http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/Group/Overview.html > > > >Regards, > >Lofton
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 18:28:39 UTC