Re: [Draft] Response to Last Call comment

I looks like we're ok on comment #1

On # 2,I would opt to put the new sentence in 2.72 where it talks about scope.

thx....Dave

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Lofton Henderson<lofton@rockynet.com> 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.)
>
> 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 <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.  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 14:30:21 UTC