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: Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] 24 hours to comment


Hi Lofton,


I did notice it. I do find it better, but still a bit harsh. Again, I'm not in a position to propose something significant better, so that will do (i guess).


Ben.


Thursday, March 30, 2006, 7:58:32 AM, you wrote:


>


Hi Benoit,


Notice below, after the quoted initial draft, I suggested a replacement for that sentence (I didn't like the original either).  Do you think it is better?


Cheers,

-Lofton.


At 02:12 AM 3/30/2006 -0500, Benoit Bezaire wrote:



I'm not so sure about this sentence: "There is concern for the timely publication of WebCGM 2.0, and a general concern that WebCGM 2.0 should not bog down in sorting out of all fine details of internationalized links."


The problem is that I don't have better wording to suggest. Can it be written in a more politically correct way?



-- 


Regards,


 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com



This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. 



Wednesday, March 29, 2006, 11:37:02 AM, you wrote:



>


All -- 24 hours to comment.  Let's get it right this time!



(Was thread:


http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200603/msg00045.html )



As agreed at the telecon today, we will put a clarification into the email archives about the 2 paragraphs in 2.0 Requirements [3], section 2.5.  In section 2.5, before the 2nd paragraph, we will put an editor's note that the authors have agreed to @@this clarification@@ [linked] of the unicode requirements for WebCGM 2.0



[2] http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/WebCGM_20_Requirements.html



Here is my first draft of a proposed clarification.  Please make specific suggestions (or else endorse it as is):




[[[ 


Bottom line.  Internationalized links are supported in (draft) WebCGM 2.0, and were supported in (Rec) WebCGM 1.0 as well.  Unicode (UTF-8 or UTF-16) may occur in object id's, object names, and in link fragments.  [LH:  as well as link base addresses, I think].



Confusing requirements.  There has been confusion between the two paragraphs of section 2.5 in the WebCGM 2.0 Requirements Document [1].  It has two causes:  difference between the general requirements for (scalable) Web graphics formats and specific application constituency requirements; and some previous misunderstanding of the implications of IRI and internationalized links.



[1] http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/WebCGM_20_Requirements.html



Explanation.  The requirements in the two paragraphs of 2.5 come from two different sources.  Firstly (1st pgph of 2.5), there is a set of general requirements for a scalable vector graphics format, drafted by the W3C Graphics Activity about 10 years ago [2].  In the case of Unicode support in the WebCGM components involved in object linking, these were adopted into WebCGM 1.0, and in fact are further clarified in (draft) 2.0.  (And indeed are implemented already.) 


  


[2] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/ScalableReq , 



Secondly (2nd pgph of 2.5), there are more recent requirements statements that arise from the major WebCGM constituencies in aerospace that are applying WebCGM (via Cascading Profiles).  In these constituencies, there is no present need for internationalized links.  There is concern for the timely publication of WebCGM 2.0, and a general concern that WebCGM 2.0 should not bog down in sorting out of all fine details of internationalized links.  


Conclusion.  The internationalized link support currently in draft WebCGM 2.0 (which is a clarification of the 1.0 capabilities) meets the generalized requirements articulated for Web graphics formats [2], and provides a foundation from which specific application requirements can work.  Specific application constituencies can add whatever further restrictions might be appropriate, via Cascading Profiles. 


]]]



My own comments:



In 2nd-to-last pgph, change last sentence to:  "This paragraph expressed the concern of this application constituency that the timely publication of WebCGM 2.0 should not be unduly delayed in sorting out all of the fine details of internationalized links."  



I'm not completely happy with "Conclusion" yet.  (Oh, and s/application requirements/application sectors/ )



-Lofton.






-- 

Regards,

 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com


This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected

by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware

that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or

any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in

error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and

delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. 



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