- From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:56:08 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- CC: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Lofton Henderson wrote: > 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.) Yes this schema issue seems to be resolved. > > 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? I agree that we should add this wording (I am fine with either solution) We should discuss it at the F2F2. It is not much work, nor much value but it would satisfy the commenter and therefore close this second issue. This is the easiest solution, saying "no" could involve more argumentation ... and loose time before going to CR. Thierry. > > 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 <lofton@rockynet.com >> <mailto: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, >>> public-webcgm@w3.org <mailto: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 >>> [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 >>> 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 >> >> 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 >> RCS Paris 488.018.631 >> SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 08:56:45 UTC