Re: Response to WebCGM 2.0 Last Call comment: 2006Jul/0000.html

Hello Thierry,

Thank you very much for your reply. I am satisfied with your
resolutions. If you don't here anything else from the i18n core WG,
please regard these issues as closed.

Regards, Felix.


Thierry MICHEL wrote:
> Felix,
> 
> The WebCGM WG thank you for your comments on WebCGM 2.0.
> 
>    *  Sent: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 22:52:15 +0900
>    * Archived:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2006Jul/0000.html
> 
> The WebCGM WG has the following responses to your comments:
> 
>> Comment 1 (editorial): <title> elements in some files are confusing
>> It seems that some <title> elements contain "OASIS CGM Open
>> specification - ...", e.g.
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/WebCGM20-TOC.html
>> "OASIS CGM Open specification - WebCGM Profile - Expanded Table of
> Contents"
>> This is just confusing and should be fixed.
> 
> RESPONSE to Comment 1:
> Agreed, we will fix it.  Thanks for catching this.  The <title> elements
> should match the text that immediately precedes the horizontal rule at
> the top of each chapter.
> 
>> Comment 2 (editorial): Reference to Unicode
>> In >
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/WebCGM20-Intro.html#norm-ref
>> you have two references to Unicode, one generic reference, and one to
>> version 4.01. Is there a reason for that? If not, please reference to
>> Unicode following the description at
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-RefUnicode , that is, only in a
>> generic manner.
> 
> RESPONSE to Comment 2:
> Originally we had considered that both generic and specific were
> appropriate, as described in CharMod C063 [1] (and its immediately
> preceding comment).  Upon further discussion, the WebCGM WG believes
> that generic alone suffices.  The References will be changed to contain
> only the generic reference.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#C063
> 
>> Comment 3 (editorial): Why not Unicode as the default encoding?
>> In
>>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/WebCGM20-Concepts.html#webcgm_2_4
> 
>> , (sec. 2.5.4), you describe isolatin1 as the default "character set".
>> We would propose to describe UTF-8 as the default character encoding,
>> and to use the term "character encoding" instead of "character set". See
>> also http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#C020 .
> 
> RESPONSE to Comment 3:
> The basic reason is "legacy".  WebCGM 2.0 is an upgrade of WebCGM 1.0,
> which is a profile of ISO CGM:1999.  In ISO CGM:1999 (and :1992, :1987
> before it), the default is isolatin1.  Because the default is implicit
> (nothing in the CGM file declares it), and because of the mechanism
> which ISO CGM specifies for changing to a non-default character encoding
> for a metafile instance, in fact it would be technically ill-specified
> (i.e., unimplementable) for a profile such as WebCGM 2.0 to prescribe
> that the implicit default is other than isolatin1.
> 
> We agree that WebCGM 2.0 should use the proper terminology, "character
> encoding", where ever possible.  In some places it is not possible, such
> as the proper names of ISO CGM:1999 elements (e.g., "CHARACTER SET
> LIST").  But we will make appropriate changes in the descriptive, prose
> parts of the profile.
> 
> Please acknowledge this WebCGM WG response by replying to this mail and
> copying the WebCGM public mailing list:
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> On behalf of the WebCGM Working Group,
> Thierry Michel,  WebCGM WG Team Contact.