- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:56:37 -0400
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: public-webcgm@w3.org
- Message-ID: <546c6c1c0908130656q7a9d154ao6ea754fe986f88f7@mail.gmail.com>
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 Thursday, 13 August 2009 13:57:18 UTC