- From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:27:23 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- CC: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Lofton Henderson wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > I have done a lot more work on > http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM , > and have more questions and comments. > > First, a global question: are we sure that this new21 markup will be > acceptable to the people who are ruling on the WebCGM21 spec. > acceptability for /TR/ (pubrules)? Of course it is 100% sure it is acceptable. We can use are own styling. And you can check the doc does pass the pubrules checker. > > Second, if "yes": if we markup the whole document, should the SoTD say > something? As you like. > > Details... > > a.) Okay. That markup (below) with the IDL blocks works. (Could apply > it also to the ECMAScript chapter.) > > b.) I ran into problems again, trying to use the <div> approach on a > group of rows in a table: > http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM#styleprop-table > > > So I created a variant of the new21 style, called "new21-inline" and > applied it to each <tr>. It omits the margins and borders. (It also > works applying it to lists, as in the <ul> in the local TOC at the start > of the chapter. But we don't necessarily have to markup that TOC stuff). OK fine. > > Questions.... > > 1.) threshold question: here is a good threshold example. Search on > 'grnode' in WebCGM21-DOM.html. In a dozen places, you'll find > single-sentence clarifications of the attribute/method behavior if the > node type is 'grnode'. This is not new functionality, but rather > clarification of ambiguity that existed in WebCGM 2.0. The changes are > referenced in the Change Log. Should they be highlighted? It seems to > me that we should be careful to separate new functionality from > editorial. improvements (like clarifications) to 2.0 functionality. I agree it is not a new features.Does not need styling. > > Another such example is the new last paragraph to each of 2.2.2 and > 2.2.3, clarifying 2.0 alpha transparency functionality: > http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Concepts.html#webcgm_2_2_2 same as previous case. > > 2.) deletions? I can't think right now whether there are any functional > deletions, but I think there might be. It would probably be in the > context of deprecation/obsoletion... probably not a new feature ;-) > > 3.) Deprecation/obsoletion: things that are deprecated in one version > migrate to obsolete in the next. Is that a new feature to be marked? > http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Conf.html#webcgm_conformance_deprObs > > > (Some of this might be easiest to discuss at the Thursday telecon.) will do. TM.
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 06:28:15 UTC