[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: ISSUE: Normative references in section 1.2 need updating.
Hi all, As John McLaughlin likes to say ... Issue 1 ISO/IEC 10646 This currently lists ISO/IEC 10646-1:2000 and ISO/IEC 10646-2:2000. ISO/IEC 10646:2003 cancels and replaces both. Should we reference the English version as our normative reference like we do for ISO/IEC 8632:1999? Issue 2 ISO/IEC 10646-UTF8 See above. ISO/IEC 10646:2003 cancels and replaces all previous additions and amendments. Annex D defines UTF-8 if we wish to have a separate reference for UTF-8. Issue 3 ISO/IEC 8632:1999(E) ITTF has relocated their Publicly Available Standards web page. The old URL redirects to the new one, but you never know how long that will last. The new URL is http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html Issue 4 ISO/IEC 8632:1999/Cor 2:2007 I think this reference is fine, but why isn't Cor 1:2006 also listed? I think either both should be listed (my preference) or neither (which relies on the reader to find them). Listing only one implies that the other one is not relevant to WebCGM. Issue 5 RFC 1951 I've read in the past (although I can't find it now on the RFC Editor's Web site) that the IETF considers the plain text versions of the RFCs to be the only normative versions. I believe W3C has a similar rule regarding XHTML versions of their recommendations versus other formats such as PDF and PostScript. I think we should change the reference here to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1951.txt just to be on the safe side. Issue 6 XML 1.0 XML 1.0 is now in its fourth edition. The list of editors is the same, and the publication date is August 2006 (with in place edits in September 2006). The URL is http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/. Alternatively, perhaps we could just reference XML 1.0 generically (without reference to a specific edition) and reference the "latest" URL http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/. Issue 7 Namespaces in XML Here we do have a generic reference along with the generic URL, but we mention the publication date of the first edition (January 1999). This is now in its second edition, so the publication date needs to be changed to August 2006. Also, there is an additional editor R. Tobin which should be added at the end of the editors list. Issue 8 RFC 3629 Isn't this redundant? We already reference UTF-8 separately (see issue 2 above). Issue 9 RFC 2781 Again, isn't this redundant? Annex C of ISO/IEC 10646:2003 defines UTF-16 if we wish to have a separate reference for UTF-16. Issue 10 UNICODE We have language here that states "as updated from time to time...," but we might as well start with the latest version at the time of publication of WebCGM 2.1. Right now that would be version 5.1. The Unicode Consortium. The Unicode Standard, Version 5.1.0, defined by: The Unicode Standard, Version 5.0 (Boston, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2007. ISBN 0-321-48091-0), as amended by Unicode 5.1.0 (http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/). Issue 11 JPEG?? We have a normative reference to PNG which forms the basis of compression type 9 for the Tile element. Why isn't there also a normative reference to JPEG which forms the basis of compression type 7 for the Tile element? It could be either ITU-T Rec. T.81 (1992) or ISO/IEC 10918-1:1994. That is all for now. Rob
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]