OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cgmo-webcgm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Recommendations on references [was: Chapter 3 review]


In processing Benoit's Ch.3 comments, there were a handful that dealt with 
normative and informative references.  Most are straightforward.  At least 
one might be an issue...

Should we change URI to IRI?

I would like the ATA and S1000D folks to comment on that.  Is IRI an 
immediate requirement, or not?  (Given that ATA Grex doesn't allow unicode 
for graphical or non-graphical text, I'd be surprised to hear that IRI is a 
requirement.)

At 04:34 PM 4/21/2005 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:

>[...]
>
>3.1.1.1 Fragment definition
>   - Should we change URI references to IRI references? (see:
>   http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt) (for the entire spec)

Recommendation:  Stick with URI (rfc3986) for 2.0 unless/until IRI is shown 
to be important, immediate requirement for WebCGM 2.0 target 
constituency.  (Try to postpone IRI till next version, 2.1.  Altho' we 
might have to try to defend that if we have an OASIS-W3C collaboration..)

>   - Should we update the XPointer reference (that specification has
>   been superceded)?

Recommendation:  Change to Xpointer Framework (Rec 2003).  It's an 
informative reference anyway.

>[...]
>
>3.1.1.3 Fragment Character Repertoire
>   - Should we update our XML 1.0 (second edition) to the third edition
>   or go to XML 1.1 (Rec)

Recommendation:  XML 1.0 3rd Edition.
Discussion:  "If not broken, don't fix it."  We have a simple normative 
dependence on XML char. repertoire rules,  XML sec 2.2.  (Plus we now have 
XML content in the XCF.)  At the 2005 W3C Tech Plenary, I heard 
controversy/argument about slow uptake of 1.1 for ??? reasons, and people 
are sticking with 1.0.  So let's keep it simple.

>   - Should we update our HTML 4.0 reference to 4.01 or XHTML?

Recommendation:  HTML 4.01.
Discussion:  We have simple non-normative reference to "Target" names and 
behaviors.  (Non-normative, because we actually copy what we need into 
WebCGM text.)  We also have reference to how to use the <object> 
element.  It's dicey whether that is normative or informative.  On the one 
hand, we can't place normative requirements on HTML content, which is where 
the <object> element lives.  On the other hand, we *can* say that all 
viewers must support the (recommended) set of <param> capabilities.  But 
... that doesn't seem to be a normative invocation of HTML / XHTML itself.

Thoughts / objections about any of these?

-Lofton.







[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]