Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Action item completed, review of Model Profile column in Chapter 6

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

I incorporated all of the copious fixes (to the MP column of the PPF) that 
Rob highlighted in his attachment.  You will see these in the Editor's 
Draft that I will post soon.

To my amazement, I think this leads to zero substantive changes -- it's all 
editorial.  Basically, the WebCGM 1.0 PPF was based on the text of CGM:1992 
Amendment 2.  When that text was integrated into CGM:1999, some things were 
shuffled around and some formatting was touched up.  E.g., a lot of section 
reference numbers changed.  And the tables of section 16, "Binary encoding 
rules" (precisions, etc), were integrated into the main tables.

There were a couple of sections missing altogether, and they have been added:
T.26.11 -- Transparency (element) -- no substantive changes, since it was 
prohibited in 1.0.
T.26.12 -- INTERPRETATION OF STRUCTURES AND DIRECTORIES -- other than a 
mysterious statement about "produce the correct graphical results", this 
just says to obey the rules in 3.2.1.1 - 3.2.1.5

I will have a look at improving some formatting, per Rob's comments #1 - #3 
(below).

I haven't yet processed Dave's comments on col.1 and col.2 of the PPF.

Regards,
-Lofton.

At 05:51 PM 9/27/2005 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
>Lofton,
>
>This (lengthy, I'm afraid) report completes an Action Item that I undertook
>to review the Model profile column of the PPF for accuracy. For reference,
>this is the email where I raised the question about the accuracy of that
>column in the PPF.
>
>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200508/msg00052.html
>
>In short, I found a mess. There are obsolete tables, tables with missing
>rows, etc. The good news is that I think it is a manageable mess. I don't
>believe that I've found any substantial problems beyond what we've already
>discussed. It's mostly a matter of getting the language updated to the
>current version of the Model profile. In some cases it is even simpler than
>that, I've also flagged some style differences, e.g. Bold Italic text in the
>original Model profile showing up as plain text, etc.
>
>First though, I have some comments relating to our HTML formatted version of
>the PPF.
>
>1) The deprecated bgcolor attribute is used on the TD element to generate
>the black color that marks the top of each row in the Model profile column
>of the PPF. Purists might object to this. If so, another style could be
>added to the local style element to handle this. I could not find a way to
>get Amaya to add the bgcolor attribute, and I had to edit the file by hand
>to add it where I needed it. The rest of the editing was done in Amaya, as
>explained below.
>
>2) Some of the Model profile information in the current Model profile is in
>tables; i.e. a table inside the PPF cell. In the HTML version, this is free
>form and difficult to read, especially with proportional fonts. I've have
>made notes where this occurs, however, I don't know enough about HTML (i.e.
>if nested tables are allowed) to propose a solution.  In any case, I believe
>this only occurs where WebCGM 2.0 differs from the Model profile; i.e. users
>won't have to read the Model profile column to get the WebCGM 2.0
>requirements. We can probably leave this alone.
>
>3) The current Model profile uses the ballot box with check (U+2611) and
>ballot box characters to indicate the Model profile requirement (Required,
>Permitted or Prohibited) and possible alternatives. In the HTML version,
>these characters are replaced with "Yes," and "No" respectively. I presume
>this was done so that the Latin-1 character set could be used in the HTML
>file. However, this initially caused me some confusion because my brain
>turned these into attributes with an implied and operator between them
>(because they are all listed). Consider this:
>ColourClass: Required Yes; Permitted No;
>Huh? How can something be required, and yet at the same time not permitted??
>I propose an additional explanatory paragraph in Section 6.1. You'll see it
>in the attachment.
>
>Finally, my report. I used Amaya to edit the HTML version of CD2. I marked
>my changes with the .editorial style. It doesn't show up as well as the
>.issue style, but there was already text that used the .issue style. I
>wanted to avoid confusion. I then converted the edited HTML into PDF, so
>that I could attach additional explanatory comments. In particular, there
>are summary notes at the beginning of each section.
>
>Disclaimer: Along the way, I noticed some mistakes in columns 1 and 2, and
>corrected them appropriately. However, my review focused on column 3, so I
>did not do a comprehensive review of columns 1 and 2. There will be places
>where text in column 2 needs to be updated to match the updated Model
>profile text in column 3.
>
>Regards,
>
>Rob
>
>  <<WebCGM20-Profile.pdf>>