RE: CGM Open TC meeting?

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Harry,

Thanks for your comments.  I see that Dieter has already answered, but let 
me emphasize one detail:

At 01:40 PM 9/20/01 -0400, you wrote:
>[...]
>Numerous vendors claim SVG support and even ISODraw has some output
>support for this specification.

(I think the Orlando Vendor demo will show that there are 4-5 fairly 
complete/correct WebCGM implementations.)

>One of the key factors programs are
>looking at other than the XML implementations is that it has a DOM.
>With all the recent e-mail traffic it looks like with the cancellation of
>the TICC week, we have shifted the emphasis of the DOM work to getting
>ready for the demo in Orlando.

To be clear:  DOM and Orlando demo were both on the Vancouver agenda, with 
about an hour for the latter and the rest of the day for the former.  I am 
riding herd on Orlando, and Dave (as TC Chair) is shepherding DOM.

I have a 10-day deadline to submit our Orlando vendor-demo 
application.  This is why I have urgently put focus on a telcon for next 
week (which we were going to need anyway).

I fully expect Dave to continue to drive DOM forward, probably at an 
Orlando TC meeting.  Perhaps my assessment is wrong, and useful progress 
can be made in telecon on DOM, but I think a f2f is needed to finally 
finish a strawman IDL spec for DOM.  The loss of the Vancouver f2f is 
regrettable, but I hope it is no worse than a 2-month delay.  (Maybe Dave 
can even get his IDL guru to write a draft for Orlando discussion.)

>I think that might be a good short term goal
>but not good for bringing home the fact that CGM and webCGM is the format
>to use for your technical drawings.

Completely agree.

>[...]
>Other questions are we as a community working with displaying CGM or webCGM
>graphics on a PDA?

Good question.  I think WebCGM is suitable as is -- it's pretty lean and 
mean.  So this is a vendor question.

>Additionally has anyone looked into the SCORM work and bring
>CGM into the fold.

Can you provide a reference (link) for SCORM?

>[...]
>Any help in answering the above questions and then the basic question of 
>CGM verses
>SVG would be very helpful.

The official W3C position on both RECs is:  SVG for high-end graphic arts, 
presentation graphics, etc; WebCGM for technical graphics.  So it comes 
down to implementations.  There are many SVG efforts, but most are 
incomplete and unverified (and probably error-fraught).  At most two will 
be fairly complete and correct (in my opinion).  Supposedly, there will be 
several WebCGM implementations by December which will pass the test 
suite.  (We'll see!).

-Lofton.

*******************
Lofton Henderson
1919 Fourteenth St., #604
Boulder, CO   80302

Phone:  303-449-8728
Email:  lofton@rockynet.com
*******************