Re: [cgmo-webcgm] REVIEW: Chapter 1

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Rob --

Thanks again for a good and thorough review.

All --

Have a look and speak up quickly if you disagree on any of these.  I am 
editing the results into an editors draft now.

Where my answer was not a simple "Done" or "Fixed", I have made a comment 
prefaced by "[**LH**]".   A couple of these are unresolved as yet.

There are several questions of style.  Here are three references that 
pertain to style rules.  I generally follow, but don't consult them 
intensively.  Feel free to point out deviations (and note that the OASIS & 
W3C styles may be contradictory.)

[1] http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/
[3] http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/


At 04:58 PM 5/9/2008 -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.

Good.


>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

Good idea.


>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:

Good.

One preface of my own:  if we have any of this references stuff wrong 
(e.g., which version of DOM3 Events or DOM2 or ...), then it can get 
straightened out definitively in the W3C phase (assuming there is one).


>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?

[**LH**]  I think "just turned out that way".

>Should we standardize on one or
>the other?

[**LH**]  I'm unsure about that.  My general leaning is "no" -- there might 
be cases where you want latest, or cases where you want specific.

ASIDE
=====
Here are my general thoughts on "which version"...

With non-normative references (this section 1.3), it probably doesn't 
matter which way.  Generally, I like to reference a fixed version, simply 
because one knows what it contains.  (Inverting the statement, what is the 
future version and what's in it?  E.g., what is the latest version of HTML 
4.01?  Is it XHTML 1.0, or XHTML 2.0, or HTML 5, or...?  Does it deprecate 
or remove TARGET attribute?  Etc.)

With normative references (1.2), I strongly believe in referencing a 
specific version.  Normative reference to "Latest version", in which the 
version changes in the future, may impose some changed conformance 
requirements.  I.e., conformance to a fixed version of WebCGM involves 
conformance to a moving target in the normative reference.

That said, W3C was pretty adamant about how we reference Unicode.  Violates 
the "fixed version" principle, IMO.  But ... we accepted it (Chris Lilley 
is a long-time Unicode participant and wonk.)

Back to 1.3, non-normative references.  I have a mild preference in general 
for "fixed version".  But I might opt differently for different cases, and 
could be easily convinced.

Thoughts?  Preferences?


>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.

[**LH**]  I'll propose URL-SPACE-PERIOD.  Does that seem okay?

(I have just gotten into the habit of not putting a punctuation or funny 
character adjacent to the URL, because ...blah...blah...  Especially if the 
printed URL is actually carrying the link as well.)


>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/

[**LH**]  No strong feeling.  (Benoit did most of our Events research here.)


>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.

[**LH**]  I'm thinking that 2.0 suffices.  Reason:  I think the only thing 
we take from it is the inheritance model, and we basically imitate that (in 
WebCGM).  Does 2.1 change the model (in which case I'd say "no, stick with 
2.0")?  Does 2.1 improve the model description (in which case, "yes, ...").



>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?

[**LH**]  Here is the history.  When CGM Open Consortium Inc was writing 
1.0, and making it a W3C Rec, we put the TM there.  Reason:  we didn't want 
someone to coopt it for a product name.

If CGM Open Consortium Inc owned it (pre-OASIS), or co-owned it, then OASIS 
has inherited that.

Bottom line.  I don't know who owns it.  OASIS or W3C or both or 
neither.  Every time I edit a new version, I look at it, wonder, and move on.

Do you think we should quietly eliminate it?  Or quietly leave it?  Or...?


>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?

Fixed.  (With direct reference.)


>1.5
>No changes.
>
>
>1.6
>The second sentence contains "CGM 1.0." I assume that was intended to be
>"WebCGM 1.0."

Fixed.


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

Fixed (deleted).



>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."

Fixed as follows...

[**LH**]  Rewrite the sentence into the active voice, "Cascading Profiles 
describes the use of WebCGM as a core profile from which specific 
industries derive and define their technical profiles."



>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."

[**LH**]  I like your proposal for use of chapter, and 
section/subsection.  I'll try to make it uniform when I see deviations.


>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.

[**LH**]  Okay with me.  Any contrary opinions before I change it?



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

[**LH**]  By the time I read your comment, I was just thinking... would it 
be nice to put the normative/informative notation at the start of each 
first-level section of the chapter, with the inheritance statement 
"...unless otherwise indicated" applying to subsections (2nd level and 
below).  I.e., every section N.M would have, "This section and its 
subsections are {normative | informative} unless otherwise 
indicated."  Thoughts?


>In the ISO Central Secretariat's address, add "International Organization
>for Standardization (ISO)" as the second line.

Done.

>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".

Done.


>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

Done.


>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?

Fixed.

[**LH**]  I changed the sentence to, "For more information on WebCGM and 
the CGM:1999 standard itself, the CGM Open Web site has a collection of 
bibliographic references and short articles:", and dropped its link.


>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=browse&sort=name

[**LH**]  I'm unsure what you are proposing to do with that.  (In 1.2 there 
is a useful livelink that still seems to work.)


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

[**LH**] Okay with me, and we would not use that livelink (just above) at 
all, right?  I'll check first with Dick Puk, whether there is a useful SC24 
site.

Thanks!
-Lofton.


>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
>at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php