RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Just some typos

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

[Implementers, this affects you -- please have a look at the end...]

At 11:46 AM 11/3/2005 -0700, Robert Orosz wrote:
>Lofton,
>
>Regarding "implementor" versus "implementer" the Compact Oxford English
>dictionary votes for the latter.  See http://www.askoxford.com/

Thanks.  (Good reference.)


>Regarding "gray" versus "grey" both spellings are acceptable.  However, I
>only found the "gray" variation used once in CGM:1999 on page 92.
>Everywhere else, e.g. T.14.1 of the Model Profile, I find the "grey"
>variation.  Where in that document did you find "grayscale"?

Oops, we have here some more divergence between WebCGM (and ATA) MP versus 
ISO CGM MP.  Below is based on REC WebCGM 1.0 MP text, and (printed) ISO 
CGM:1999 text.

T.14.1:
WebCGM---grayscale
1999---greyscale

T.16.2:
WebCGM---grayscale
1999---greyscale

T.16.9:
WebCGM---grayscale
1999---greyscale

T.20.34:
WebCGM---grayscale
1999---greyscale

T.26.3:
WebCGM---grayscale
1999---greyscale

Attachment 26.3:
WebCGM---grayscale
1999---greyscale

This is probably another artifact of the re-edit of the ISO CGM MP between 
1992 and 1999.  Therefore, as before, the ISO CGM:1999 MP is the normative 
reference.  So I think that we need to change WebCGM 2.0 MP uniformly to 
use "greyscale".

QUESTION.  Agreed?

(Note.  As I read the MP, only T.16.2 is a normative specification of 
content.  The other occurrences are prose references to category, which 
have no normative instantiation in WebCGM except in T.16.2.)

QUESTION.  Should T.16.2 have a note about history of grey vs. gray ('92 
Amd.2 vs. '99) and recommend that viewers be tolerant?  Or (since I'm 
guessing grey/grayscale is virtually unused), should we just correct the 
text to align with CGM:1999 and otherwise leave it alone?

-Lofton.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 11:13 AM
>To: Cruikshank, David W; CGM Open WebCGM TC
>Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Just some typos
>
>
>
>
>At 04:04 PM 11/1/2005 -0800, Cruikshank, David W wrote:
> >My review of WebCGM 1.0 - 10/27 version - typos.
>
>3 comments/questions...
>
>
>"Notices - first para, change implementors to implementers"  -- I have one
>spell checker (Amaya) that accepts both.  I have another (Eudora) that
>rejects both.  Anyone know about this word?
>
>"...WebCGMString... vs WebCGMstring kind of stuff" -- I found two
>occurrences of "WebCGMstring" and changed to "WebCGMString".
>
>"T20.34 COLOUR TABLE model profile entry, should Greyscale be
>Grayscale?"  CGM:1999 says "grayscale" for the entry for MetDesc, and this
>is the only normative usage -- the value in the ColourClass
>substring.  Therefore I changed any occurrences of "grey" to "gray" (all
>such occurrences are editorial, occurring in prose references to the value
>selected by the MetDesc parameter value.)
>
>-Lofton.