RE: [cgmo-webcgm] We got cut off! - Fall meeting

["Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>]

Dieter,

I think I distributed this last month.  It was my initial cut and noting the differences and suggested alignment questions for WebCGM 2.0.  Can you use this as an initial cut of the graphical upgrade of WebCGM?

thx...Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: Dieter Weidenbrueck [mailto:dieter@itedo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:44 AM
To: Cruikshank, David W; Lofton Henderson
Cc: CGM Open WebCGM TC
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] We got cut off! - Fall meeting


Dave,

all is fine with one exception:

>11 August (telecon):  WebCGM 2.0 feature freeze:
I agree with this as far as DOM and Companion Files go, however, no
real work has been done yet on the rest of WebCGM 2.0, i.e. the
graphics stuff.
We should have a clear understanding soon what we want to change:
- changes that will eliminate differences with GREXCHANGE as much
  as possible
- graphic changes as discussed in Cologne
- structural changes
  (1 picture per file only, no continued APS ID)
- intelligent content
  expand fragment syntax
  agree on object behavior matrix
  new APS ATTR interactivity (was behavior)

Questions:
- who is going to work on this?
- when will we have a complete list of changes?
- we discussed that several issues would be treated as defect
  resolutions for WebCGM 1.0 in Cologne
  (remove ambiguities around normative sections (DTD etc),
   names on para/subpara)
  Lofton had an action item here

I find it ambitious to plan for a feature freeze for all this on
August 11 given the current status.

What do you think?

Regards,
Dieter

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cruikshank, David W [mailto:david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com]
>Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 10:53 PM
>To: Lofton Henderson
>Cc: CGM Open WebCGM TC
>Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] We got cut off! - Fall meeting
>
>
>I'm proposing we adopt Lofton's proposal for a timeline on
>implementation.  If there are no comments to the contrary we will
>work to this schedule.  I'll put together something with
>milestones when I get back from vacation on the 23rd.
>
>thx...Dave
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:39 AM
>To: Cruikshank, David W
>Cc: CGM Open WebCGM TC
>Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] We got cut off! - Fall meeting
>
>
>At 08:36 AM 7/14/2004 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote:
>>[...]November might work best with shedule for vendor implementations
>>and  currently my November looks pretty empty.  [...]  Week of
>Nov 8 might
>>be good?
>
>That week, in Houston, would be fine with me.
>
>About coordination with WebCGM 2.0 schedule, here are my thoughts.  A
>proposal, for your consideration and feedback...
>
>11 August (telecon):  WebCGM 2.0 feature freeze:
>==========
>At the end of that telecon, all major issues should be closed, and WebCGM
>2.0, DOM, Events, XML Companion, etc should be functionally complete.
>
>Between now and August 11, everyone should look closely at the
>functionality.  Especially, implementors, have your implementation teams
>looking at it and giving feedback.  (e.g., feature too expensive, wrong
>details, missing critical feature, feature not worth the effort, etc)
>
>mid-August thru mid-November:  write 2.0 spec
>==========
>Refine and draft the document through next two telecons and a F2F, resolve
>issues arising from implementation, etc.  At least three significantly
>complete drafts produced for review and discussion -- one per month.
>
>mid-August thru mid-November:  vendor implementations
>==========
>Concurrently, the vendors should work on the implementations.
>(Actually, I
>think we know enough about the final shape to start implementation
>projects
>*now* ... except we don't have a JavaScript binding yet!).  By mid- or
>late-October, all committed implementations should be fairly advanced --
>major stuff done, maybe some details and minor stuff remaining.
>
>The implementation phase is critical.  The spec won't progress and get
>needed refinement feedback without it.  It will essentially position us at
>the "CR" phase in the W3C REC track if we do this successfully.
>
>early-November
>==========
>Next F2F.  Before "final" (third) 2.0 draft.  Before effective completion
>of implementations.
>
>This is very coarse, but what do people think about it?  Is it
>realistically achievable?
>
>(We can refine and get some intermediate milestones if the overall shape
>looks okay.)
>
>Regards,
>-Lofton.
>
>
>

ATA_WebCGM_differences.pdf