[Minutes] WebCGM Telecon 2009-11-11

WebCGM WG --

The minutes of the PR-resolution teleconference are at

http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2009/11/11-webcgm-minutes.html

and also available as text, below.

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                             WebCGM teleconf
                               11 Nov 2009

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/11-webcgm-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Lofton_Henderson, Stuart_Galt, Don_Larson, Dave, Thierry,
           Ulrich (IG), Forrest (IG)

    Regrets
           benoit

    Chair
           lofton

    Scribe
           stuart

Contents

      * [3]Topics
      * [4]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________



    <scribe> scribe: stuart

    <lofton> My message to the WG list (15 min. ago) has not appeared.
    Therefore I'll cut-paste pieces:

    <lofton> [Start...] Ulrich has just sent me updates to the most
    recently published implementation matrix [$1\47] (I have not yet had
    time to integrate the updates).

    <lofton> Basically, it looks like ACI LETD is okay, while ACI HSD
    does not have 2-pass, nor does setGetIntensity (which feature is
    *not* in the at-risk list).

    <lofton> More...

    <lofton> As expected, these at-risk features will probably get
    dropped:

    <lofton> 1.) ACI Line Type Continuation (listed "at risk" for CR)

    <lofton> 2.) ACI Edge Type Continuation (listed "at risk" for CR)

    <lofton> 3.) XCF access to transform stuff (listed "at risk" for CR)

    <lofton> More...

    <lofton> However, we also are missing 2-pass on these features

    <lofton> 4.) ACI Hatch Style Definition (listed "at risk" for CR)

    <lofton> 5.) DOM set/get Intensity (NOT listed "at risk").

    <lofton> More...

    <lofton> We have a decision to make about #4 -- Stuart and Dave
    assert that this is a key feature for A&D applications. Therefore,
    apparently we should wait for 2-pass, unless they are happy with the
    LETD result and don't mind abandoning HSD.

    <lofton> We don't have to decide about #5 -- we must implement it,
    or else (if we drop it), then we will have to go through another WD
    cycle in W3C.

    <lofton> More...

    <lofton> Therefore, any resolution we pass today would have to be
    conditional:

    <lofton> "Resolution: After attainment of 2-pass status for ACI
    access to Hatch Style Definition and 2-pass status status for DOM
    set/get access to "Intensity", the WebCGM WG will remove the
    following three "at risk" features from the WebCGM 2.1 specification
    and wishes to advance the resulting document to PR status:

    <lofton> 1.) ACI Line Type Continuation;

    <lofton> 2.) ACI Edge Type Continuation;

    <lofton> 3.) XCF access to geometric transform functionality;"

    Don will work on ACI intensity. He will try to get this working next
    week.

    The Hatch style definintion is different from line styles so it
    doesn't look like it will be implemented in a near timeframe.

    <lofton> (email finally appeared:
    [5]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2009Nov/0007
    .html )

       [5] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2009Nov/0007.html

    <lofton> Okay, I guess we will have to drop ACI-HSD, as no
    implementor plans to do it. Therefore the resolution looks like...

    <lofton> Resolution: After attainment of 2-pass status for DOM
    set/get access to "Intensity",

    <lofton> the WebCGM WG will remove the following four "at risk"
    features from the

    <lofton> WebCGM 2.1 specification and wishes to advance the
    resulting document to PR

    <lofton> status:

    <lofton> 1.) ACI access to Line Type Continuation;

    <lofton> 2.) ACI access to Edge Type Continuation;

    <lofton> 3.) XCF access to geometric transform functionality;

    <lofton> 4.) ACI access to Hatch Style Definition;

    I agree (with reluctance)

    don, agrees

    dave, agrees

    <tmichel> I agree

    <lofton> I agree

    <don> I agree

    absent: dieter

    Looks like the resolution passed.

    <lofton> (I will try to get email agree/disagree from Benoit and
    Dieter.)

    <dave> great...gotta run

    <tmichel> we should probably have acceptance of this resolution by
    Benoit or Dieter by email

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [6]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([7]CVS log)
     $Date: 2009/11/11 20:42:07 $
      _________________________________________________________

       [6] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
       [7] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:41:08 UTC