- From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:50:12 +0100
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>
- CC: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Lofton,
I heve updated theDisposition of Last Call comments for WebCGM 2.1, to
reflect the response status of the I18N comments.
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2008/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html#Issue5
All 6 comments are now marked as [Status: WG Resolution agreed by
commenter] and I have added the link to their response in each comment.
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2008/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html#Issue5
Benoit should agree (or disagree ;-) to following.
1. [LC Review] T.14.4 and T.14.5
<http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2008/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html#Issue1>
[Status: WG Resolution agreed by commenter]
2. ISSUE: WebCGMRect::union
<http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2008/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html#Issue2>
[Status: WG Resolution sent to commenter/ No response yet]
3. getObjectExtent() question
<http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2008/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html#Issue3>
[Status: WG Resolution sent to commenter/ No response yet]
4. More on getObjectExtent()
<http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2008/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html#Issue11>
[Status: WG Resolution sent to commenter/ No response yet]
5. Question [1of2] about setView() [ Status: WG Resolution sent to
commenter/ No response yet]
<http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2008/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html#Issue12>
6. Question [2of2] about setView() [Status: WG Resolution sent to
commenter/ No response yet]
<http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2008/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html#Issue13>
This would enable to mark all the above as "WG Resolution agreed by
commenter", and we could close this document.
Thierry.
Received on Monday, 12 January 2009 08:50:54 UTC