REVIEW: Chapter 1

[Robert Orosz <roboro@auto-trol.com>]

First, I used WinMerge (a visual diff tool) to compare the XHTML file with
the 2.0 version. I saw no evidence for unintended changes or that an earlier
2.0 version of the file was used as the starting point for the 2.1 work.

1.1
No changes.


1.2
This is normative stuff, so I started a separate issue thread on what I
found.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200805/msg00040.html

The rest of the chapter is informative, so I guess that makes my comments
editorial by definition.


1.3
First, I have a couple of general observations:

1) Some of the references to W3C Recommendations point to a date-specific
version, e.g. DOM Level 3 Core, Xpointer Framework, while others point to
the latest version, e.g. SVG 1.1, HTML 4.01. Is there a particular reason
for that, or did it just turn out that way? Should we standardize on one or
the other?

2) There is inconsistent usage of punctuation at the end of each reference.
All references end with a URL. Most end with a space followed by a period
(makes it easy to copy and paste the URL I suppose, although most of these
have an anchor element that you can click on to navigate to the
destination). Some end with a period immediately after the URL, e.g. HTML
4.0.1, while others don't end with a period at all, e.g. UAAG 1.0.

DOM Level 3 Events - This is now back on the standards track, and the latest
version is a working draft.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-DOM-Level-3-Events-20071221/

Is it appropriate to cite it here? I know that it would definitely not be
allowed as a normative reference. If it is not appropriate to cite it, then
we could always replace this with DOM Level 2 Events.

http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/

CSS 2.0 - CSS 2.1 is at the candidate recommendation stage.

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/

As I mentioned above, I'm unsure of the exact rules regarding citing "work
in progress" documents as informative references. CSS 2.1 is intended to
replace CSS 2.0, so we might want to consider citing CSS 2.1 here if the
rules allow it.


1.4
This starts out with:

"The scope of this WebCGM(tm) ..."

I'm curious ... who owns the WebCGM trademark? W3C makes no mention of it.

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/ipr-notice-20021231#W3C_Trademarks

It can't be OASIS can it? The term "WebCGM" was in use long before WebCGM
2.0 became an OASIS (and W3C) standard.

If WebCGM is indeed a trademark, shouldn't that be acknowledged in a more
prominent place, e.g. the title page, instead of being buried in the middle
of an introductory chapter containing mostly informative material? Shouldn't
the trademark owner be mentioned somewhere, e.g. in the "Notices" section?
Maybe this should be an issue thread?

The next to last paragraph contains "@@WebCGM 2.0@@". Was that intended to
be an anchor element, with a href attribute pointing to the WebCGM 2.0
specification?


1.5
No changes.


1.6
The second sentence contains "CGM 1.0." I assume that was intended to be
"WebCGM 1.0."

The first list item has "[grfreq]" immediately after the anchor. It doesn't
appear to be used anywhere else.


1.7
I find the last sentence awkward for two reasons:

1) It contains "specific-industry" which sounds strange to me. The previous
sentence has "industry-specific" which sounds better.

2) "... and defined is defined in ...". I stumbled over that one too. One
way to fix it would be to change the second "defined" to "described."
Another way would be to strike "and defined."


1.8
No changes.


1.9
The list does not mention Chapter 9. By the way, the terms "chapter" and
"section" are used interchangeably, and I'm not sure that is correct usage
of those words. For example, Chapter 1 begins with "This section's ..." and
ends with "Back to top of chapter." Chapter 2 begins with "This chapter is
informative (non-normative)." and Chapter 3 goes back to "section."
Merriam-Webster defines chapter and section as follows:

chapter  1 a: a main division of a book
section  2: a distinct part or portion of something written as   a:  a
subdivision of a chapter

Based on those definitions, I would argue that Chapter 2 titled "WebCGM
concepts" contains section 2.2 titled "Picture content and usage" which in
turn contains subsection 2.2.2 titled "Drawing model."

By the way number 2. There are two different styles in use at the beginning
of each chapter regarding the placement of the main heading, i.e. the h1
element. The first places it after the Table of Contents, e.g. Chapter 1 and
Chapter 2. The second places it before the Table of Contents, e.g. Chapter 3
and Chapter 4. I prefer the latter style.


1.10
The first sentence, "This subsection ..." is redundant since the chapter
defaults at the beginning to an informative chapter. 

In the ISO Central Secretariat's address, add "International Organization
for Standardization (ISO)" as the second line. It may not be necessary, but
that is how it appears on ISO's web site. Also, replace "rue de Varembe"
with "ch. de la Voie-Creuse" and "Geneve" with "Geneva".

Replace the registration authority's address with the following:

Joint Interoperability Test Command
ATTN: JTF NITFS Registration Authority (ISO/IEC 9973)
P.O. Box 12798
Fort Huachuca, AZ  85670-2798
USA

There are two links to the CGM Open web site in close proximity. Was the
second one intended to go under the "The following World Wide Web sites have
more information on CGM:" heading?

ISO/JTC1/SC24 - This link now redirects to BSI's home page. I think the only
WWW presence that SC24 currently has is in ISO's "Livelink" system. Lofton
and I encountered this a couple of years ago when we were working on
Corrigendum 1. The new URL is:

http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=327973&objAction=br
owse&sort=name

I didn't find much useful information on CGM there, so we might want to
delete the SC24 link.

That is all. I will send in my Chapter 2 review separately.

Rob

<<application/ms-tnef>>