- From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:31:46 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Lofton, Great this response closes our Last Call review. I have updated the Disposition of comments http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2008/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html It is now ready for the Transition Call. Thierry Innovimax SARL wrote: > Dear Thierry, > > This is simply... perfect ! > > Thanks > > Mohamed > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Thierry Michel<tmichel@w3.org> wrote: >> Dear Mohamed, >> >> Thank you for your response. >> >> The WebCGM Working Group acknowledges that you are satisfied with our >> resolution about your first comment regarding the XML Schema or Relax NG. >> >> Regarding your second comment "interaction between WebCGM and CSS" >> you have requested in your last email, "to consider adding an >> informative note on that work in the spec (with one or two sentence along)". >> >> The WebCGM Working Group had fulfilled your request and has added an >> informative note regarding CSS. >> This note is incorporated into the WebCGM 2.1 CR version and is available at >> >> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Concepts.html#DOM-scope >> >> See paragraphs 3-4, as well as the new linked non-normative reference to >> "Stylable CGM" in 1.3. >> >> >> Please reply and let us know whether you accept the WG >> response or not. >> >> This issue is our last before requesting CR transition to the Director. >> Please reply ASAP, in order to not delay our publication track. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Thierry Michel. >> >> >> >> 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, 25 August 2009 10:32:13 UTC