- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:42:08 -0600
- To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090816130143.026d3970@localhost>
All -- As I read Mohamed's reply: 1.) he is satisfied with our schema reply -- we are in agreement that a schema definition belongs on WebCGM's future-deliverables wish list. Does anyone object to that? (We could not add a formal deliverable without modifying the Charter, which I don't think we intend to do. I say "wish list", because we can't commit to delivery until we know that the resources are available. In other words, it is a SHOULD-level requirement.) 2.) he would like an informative mention of the CSS/WebCGM question. I see a couple possibilities: 2a) modify/split and add a sentence to 3rd paragraph of 2.7.2 (all of which is informative), http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webcgm21-20090604/WebCGM21-Concepts.html#webcgm_2_5 or 2b) Add a sentence "Informative note: ..." as a new second paragraph to 5.4: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webcgm21-20090604/WebCGM21-DOM.html#L2666 A non-normative reference to the WebCGM/CSS paper would be added to 1.3, and linked from the new sentence(s). The sentence(s) would be along the lines of, "Note. Potential relationships between WebCGM and CSS were @@studied in some detail@@ prior to the addition of DOM-accessible and XCF-accessible Style Properties and APS Attributes to WebCGM 2.0. Ultimately, a lean and minimal WebCGM-specific model, that borrowed heavily from applicable CSS concepts (e.g., inheritance), was chosen." [@@...@@ would link to the new informative reference in Ch.1.] My Assessment: This doesn't really add anything useful to the WebCGM 2.1 spec. But on the other hand, it is little work and does no apparent harm, and satisfies a comment (therefore is probably a better solution than saying "no" to #2). (Who knows, someone might find the Cruikshank-Henderson reference to be fascinating reading!) Thoughts? Suggestions? Regards, -Lofton. At 09:56 AM 8/13/2009 -0400, Innovimax SARL wrote: >Dear Lofton, > >Please find my answer inside the email > >On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Lofton Henderson ><<mailto:lofton@rockynet.com>lofton@rockynet.com> wrote: >>Dear Mohamed, >> >>The WebCGM Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] about the >>WebCGM 2.1 Second Last Call Working Draft [2] published on 04 June >>2009. Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and >>send us comments. >> >>The Working Group's response resolution to your comment is included below. >> >>Please review it carefully and acknowledge this WebCGM WG response by >>replying to this mail and copying the WebCGM public mailing list, >><mailto:public-webcgm@w3.org>public-webcgm@w3.org. Please reply before >>17 August 2009, and let us know whether you accept the WG response or >>not. If we receive no reply from you by August 17, then we will default >>your reply to "WebCGM WG response accepted." >> >>In case you do not accept the WG response, you are requested to provide a >>specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. >> >>If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity >>to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director >>during the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C >>Recommendation Track. >> >>Best regards, >> >>On behalf of the WebCGM Working Group, >>Lofton Henderson, WebCGM WG Chair. >> >>[1] >><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2009Jun/0002.html>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2009Jun/0002.html >>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webcgm21-20090604/ >>_____________________________________________________________ >>* Comment Sent: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 >>* Archived: >><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2009Jun/0002.html>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2009Jun/0002.html >>The WebCGM WG has the following responses to your comment: >>---------------------------------------------------------- >> >>SUMMARY of your first comment: >>1 == moving forward with XML Schema or Relax NG == >>Sticking to DTD to define a XML dialect is neither sufficient neither a >>way to widespread the use of this XML dialect. For that, I ask the WG to >>consider providing normative XML Schema and/or Relax NG schema of the XCF >>model. It will help adoption especially because XCF uses Namespaces. >> >>RESPONSE to your first comment: >>The WebCGM Working Group (WG) agrees that WebCGM could potentially >>benefit by addition of a normative schema -- XML Schema or Relax NG. >>Unfortunately, this proposal is beyond the scope of this 2nd LCWD review, >>and it is deemed to be too late in the WebCGM 2.1 development cycle. >>Ideally, such a proposal would have been included in the WebCGM 2.1 >>Requirements, or before 1st LCWD review at latest. The implementation of >>such a proposal would involve major disruption of the WebCGM 2.1 text -- >>removal of the DTD and complete rewriting of Chapter 4 (at least). Since >>it does not address an error in the specification, or a serious defect, >>or violation of any W3C requirement, the WG believes that the proposal >>should be postponed until a future WebCGM development cycle. > >Fair enough. I was not suggesting removing the DTD >> >> >>As an interim step, the WG thinks that a non-normative Technical Note, >>separate from the progression of 2.1 WebCGM, might be an interesting >>approach. The WG would also welcome an initial contribution, if you have >>interest in making such. > >That's seems exactly what I proposed. I'm sorry since I don't have any >initial contribution, but I will be happy to give it a try or to review >them with care > >> >> >> >>SUMMARY of your second comment: >>2 == interaction between WebCGM and CSS == >>Is it possible to consider the role that could play CSS vis à vis WebCGM ? >> >>RESPONSE to your second comment: >>Potential relationships between WebCGM and CSS were studied in some >>detail [3] prior to the WebCGM 2.0 standardization. This study [3] >>developed a detailed model and showed the technical feasibility for a >>rich application of CSS-like styling to WebCGM. >>[3] >><http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/stylable_cgm_submitted_0324.pdf>http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/stylable_cgm_submitted_0324.pdf > >Is it possible to consider adding an informative note on that work in the >spec (with one or two sentence along), if it is not already there ? > >> >>Despite the technical feasibility, the WebCGM 2.0 authors and >>constituents agreed that the the principal WebCGM use cases did not >>justify the cost and implementation effort of such a full-featured >>normative CSS capability in WebCGM. Therefore normative CSS-like style >>sheets were not further pursued. >> >>Nevertheless, whenever possible, applicable features and characteristics >>of CSS were followed in the design of WebCGM 2.0, especially the new >>DOM-based Style Properties feature. For example the inheritance model of >>CSS was adapted directly into the Style Properties inheritance model >>(section 5.4), and there are a number of other examples of functionality >>borrowed more-or-less directly from CSS. > >Thanks for your answers > >Regards, > >Mohamed >-- >Innovimax SARL >Consulting, Training & XML Development >9, impasse des Orteaux >75020 Paris >Tel : +33 9 52 475787 >Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 ><http://www.innovimax.fr>http://www.innovimax.fr >RCS Paris 488.018.631 >SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 19:43:04 UTC