[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] REVIEW: Chapter 2
Rob -- Thanks for a great, careful review. See my responses to a few of your comments. All -- I have started making an editors draft of the next CD text. Below, I have responded to every one of Rob's comments with one of two things: "Done" (I put it into the editors draft); or a comment beginning "[**LH**]". You should have a look. E.g., the one about compositing equations. If you wish to respond to any "[**LH**]", you only need to include the item that you are addressing. (For that matter, you can reply to a "Done." if you think it's wrong.) At 05:40 PM 5/13/2008 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote: >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. In >fact, there were a few editorial improvements. I did find some >(intentionally) added paragraphs that aren't mentioned in the Change Log in >Appendix D. I'll mention those paragraphs specifically when I get to the >section they are in. > >The entire chapter is informative. I assume that makes my comments editorial >by definition. Yes, formally. But things like the compositing equations are "important informative". >2.1 >No changes. > > >2.2 > >2.2.1 >Change CCITT to ITU-T. Done. >Group 4 should be capitalized, i.e. "Group 4", not "group 4". Done. >The last sentence doesn't seem to belong in the same paragraph as the >previous sentences. The paragraph abruptly jumps from discussing raster >content to scaling WebCGM pictures in Web documents. I checked WebCGM 1.0, >and these were separate paragraphs. Done (separated). >2.2.2 >I'm not sure if the alpha blending equations are correct. In the equations >that calculate Cr', Cg', and Cb', Pa is used but Ca is not used. That >doesn't seem quite right to me, however, I don't have time right now to look >into this further. [**LH**] I don't think there is a problem. But if you can come up with a specific error and fix -- PLEASE DO -- these equations are formally informative, but probably have the impact of being normative. >In the last paragraph, change "canvas are created." to "canvas is created." Done. >2.2.3 >No changes, but note that the last paragraph discusses the background param >element within the HTML object element. There is a proposal to deprecate >that element. > >http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200802/msg00082.html Once we agree, then we can drop the paragraph. (I don't see any problem with deprecating 'background', but we ought to formally close the issue -- it's on the telecon Agenda.) >2.3 > >2.3.1 >The first sentence of the last paragraph mentions "XML fragment" in Chapter >3 in connection with the normative content model for version 4 elements. The >only normative specification of content in Chapter 3 uses EBNF notation. So, >the sentence should read something like this: > >Chapter 3 normatively defines the detailed content model for version 4 >elements in WebCGM using EBNF notation. Done. [**LH**] ...and I added "using XML DTD notation" to the end of the second sentence. >2.3.2 >I don't like the start of the second to last paragraph. How about this >instead? > >Note that 'grnode' was not present in WebCGM 1.0, but was added to WebCGM >2.0 to allow for better hierarchical structure in WebCGM documents. Done. [**LH**] And I changed the second sentence to: "The 'grnode' ("graphical node") APS allows illustration authoring tools to preserve in the WebCGM metafile instance the graphical groupings that are often used by such tools." >2.3.3 >No changes. > >2.3.4 >In the name list item, replace "object" with "an object." > >In the visibility list item, delete "potentially." Done (both). >2.3.5 >In the second sentence, replace "intelligence" with "intelligent." Done. >In the Figure 2 captions, I would prefer to see all of the type names lower >case. For example, > >Figure 2a. WebCGM File Structure - PICBODY >Figure 2b. WebCGM File Structure - LAYER > >The reason is twofold, 1) the APS type names, grobject, para, etc. are >case-sensitive as far as I know, and 2) in the actual PNG graphic the names >are all lower case. Done. >2.3.6 >The last anchor in the third paragraph targets 3.1.1.4. Shouldn't it go to >3.1.1 instead? In other words, target the entire "IRI fragment >specification" instead of a specific subsection of it. Done (for now). [**LH**] The original intent (in 1.0) may have been to link specifically, from sentence talking about linkuri, to this subsection that describes URI/IRI representation within the fragment? Do you think that's useful, or is 3.1.1 the better target? >The term "base-URL" is used once in the seventh paragraph and twice in the >10th paragraph. I think all three occurrences should be replaced with >"base-IRI" in order to be consistent with the rest of the document. Done. [**LH**] When I did the conversion, URL-to-IRI, I considered every instance. For example in 3.1.1.4, some URL occurrences should remain. I can't think why I might have exempted "base-URL" here. >2.4 >In the second paragraph, replace the two occurrences of "CGM" with "WebCGM". Done. >2.5 > >2.5.1 >In the raster list item, change "CCITT" to "ITU-T." Done. >The placement of the polysymbol list item implies that it was never allowed >in WebCGM, when in fact it was allowed in WebCGM 1.0 and removed in WebCGM >2.0. Maybe this should be broken out into a third category, "Allowed in >WebCGM 1.0, but now excluded from WebCGM." [**LH**] Rather than category-of-one, I did this: a.) changed the list introducer from "still excluded from WebCGM" to "excluded from the present version of WebCGM" b.) reworded the Polysymbol bullet: "Polysymbol - the Polysymbol element allows the sizing and placement into CGM pictures of "symbols". Symbols are defined in an external Symbol Library, which itself is a CGM. (Polysymbol was in WebCGM 1.0, but removed due to non-use.)" >2.5.2 >In the fourth list item, the two anchor elements target >"http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/" directly. This runs counter to most of the >rest of the references which add an extra level of indirection, i.e. they >target the appropriate anchor in section 1.2 or 1.3 instead. [**LH**] Reason: the first anchor targets a specific section, ".../#sec-Digital . The second one *could* reference indirectly via an entry in 1.2 or 1.3, and this is the typical W3C "Style Rule". But then the question comes up: normative (1.2) or informative (1.3). I would say informative. But in W3C I can hear the question, "why is CHARMOD informative instead of normative?" (Answer: legacy terminology, CHARMOD is just presented for equivalent contemporary terminology, see T.16.14 in section 6.5) For now, I just put a highlighted editors note in-line. >In the fourth list item, change "... attribute actually give control ..." to >"... attribute actually gives control ...". Done. >The last two paragraphs are new paragraphs, and their addition is not noted >in the Change log in Appendix D. I'm not sure how accurate the Change Log is >supposed to be. [**LH**] General rule of thumb: it should reference specific changes which would change an implementation, or which have normative impact, or which are a major contribution of explanatory text. This might have qualified, but I didn't do the editing that added the 2 pgphs. I did put the placeholder Ch.9 entry in there. I just now updated the old change log entry to mention it. >In the second to last paragraph, second occurrence of the word "definition" >is misspelled "defintion". Done. >In the last paragraph, the word "found" is misspelled "fouund". Done. >2.5.3 >No changes. > >2.5.4 >Here again, the first two anchor elements target >"http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/" directly. As I mentioned previously in >2.5.2, the general style used throughout the document for references seems >to be targeting the appropriate anchor in section 1.2 or 1.3. [**LH**] I'll tag it for further consideration. >The last two paragraphs are new paragraphs that are not mentioned in the >Change log. Again, I'm not sure if this is important or not, but I thought >I'd mention it. [**LH**] Same comment. Marginal case. But I did update the old change log entry for Ch.9. >2.6 >No changes. > > >2.7 > >2.7.2 >The first two anchor elements directly target "http://www.w3.org/". [**LH**] I think that's okay, since it is not a spec reference. >The last paragraph has two anchor elements with href attributes that target >non-existent anchors. I think the values of the href attributes were meant >to be "webcgm21-Intro.html#webcgm-20-rqts" and >"webcgm21-Intro.html#webcgm-21-rqts" respectively. Done. THANKS!!! -Lofton.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]