RE: [cgmo-webcgm] REVIEW: Chapter 2

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

Lofton,

See responses inline.


<snip>

>>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".

Duly noted.


<snip>

>>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.

I'll try and take a closer look at this sometime this week.


<snip>

>>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?

WebCGM 1.0 just linked to the RFC (RFC 2396).  So, this was added in WebCGM
2.0.

Reading this again, I notice that the paragraph begins with "Links from
...", i.e. talking about an "outbound" link.  The fragment of course applies
to an "inbound" link.  Given that, I'm not sure what the original intent
might have been.  Note that two paragraphs down there is a paragraph that
discusses link targets and links to 3.1.1.  Given that fifth paragraph, it
might just be simpler and cleaner to delete "and fragment syntax
subsections" from the end of the sentence.

Alternatively, you could add a sentence (or two) discussing WebCGM as a link
target along with a link to 3.1.1 describing the fragment syntax, and delete
the fifth paragraph.  In other words, consolidate paragraphs three and five.


<snip>

>>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.

I see your point regarding the informative versus normative issue.  The
direct link is a nice way of ducking it.


<snip>

>>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.

Thanks for the rule of thumb.  I'll keep it in mind as we move forward.


<snip>

>>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.

I agree, but on the other hand isn't document maintenance easier if you
minimize the number of external links that must be maintained?  Since DOM
Level 3 Core and SVG 1.1 are already mentioned in section 1.3, why not
target these links there?

Rob