Re: WebCGM draft

Very good.
TM.

Lofton Henderson wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
> 
> I will try to finish a "new12" markup version today.
> 
> If I don't succeed, then we can go with the version in 
> ../current-editor/.., without the new12 markup.
> 
> Does that sound okay?
> 
> -Lofton.
> 
> At 08:30 AM 9/10/2008 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
> 
>> Lofton,
>>
>>
>> When do you plan to have a document ready for approuval by the WG.
>> If we want to target the public tion on spet 17th, we must approuve 
>> tomorrow, freeze the document and I will check it and request 
>> transition request. Once approuved by my domain Leader I will request 
>> Publication.
>>
>> TM.
>>
>>
>>  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)?
>>> Second, if "yes":  if we markup the whole document, should the SoTD 
>>> say something?
>>> 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).
>>> 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.
>>> 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 
>>>
>>> 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...
>>> 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.)
>>> -Lofton.
>>>
>>> At 10:05 AM 9/8/2008 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>>>> Thierry,
>>>>> It is possible to find Valid markup, based on <span>:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM-2nd.html#L5095 
>>>>>
>>>>> (I had to tag each line individually.   Else they overlapped and 
>>>>> obscured each other if I tagged 6 lines with one <span>.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> tag each line individually with <span>, the rendering is not too 
>>>> elegant.
>>>>
>>>> I would suggest following code:
>>>>
>>>> <td>
>>>>  <pre>interface WebCGMAppStructure
>>>>       ...
>>>>  </pre>
>>>>
>>>>  <div class="new21">
>>>>   <pre>WebCGMRect   getObjectExtent();
>>>>        ...
>>>>   </pre>
>>>>  </div>
>>>> </td>
>>>>
>>>> see
>>>> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM-3nd.html#L5095 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> which does validate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TM.
>>>>
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 13:03:29 UTC