re: [cgmo-webcgm] 24 hours to comment

[Don Larson <dlarson@cgmlarson.com>]

Lofton,

Your clarfications look clear to me.

BTW- Arbortext has indicated they will and can per W3C rules
delegate me to the WebCGM WG.

Don.

  > 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.