[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] 24 hours to comment
Stuart made an interesting comment, but forgot to copy the TC list. Since it actually taps into some concerns/thoughts I have had, I'll forward it and my thoughts... At 10:42 AM 4/3/2006 -0700, Galt, Stuart A wrote: >Looks ok to me. Although I think that adding weird characters is an >expansion of the spec and while allowed in the profiles it is somewhat >dangerous because you are not guaranteed vendor support. (IMHO) I'm not sure I understand completely the comment, but "adding weird characters" presumably refers to allowing unicode in graphical text and non-graphical text. "an expansion of the spec" is what puzzles me. This was in 1.0 -- utf8 and utf16 were allowed in graphical text and non-graphical text, with *no* restrictions. 2.0 really doesn't change anything from 1.0, except: fixes the CSL tail designators (PPF); and, clarifies in 3.1.1.4 about non-ASCII in URIs (and that clarification apparently either preserves or establishes IRI compatibility). There are a couple of real issues lurking here. It has always been the case that you could make a valid WebCGM 1.0 file with Farsi in graphical text and Vietnamese in apsids and fragments. But don't expect widespread interoperability. Interoperability probably won't happen outside of European sets, and maybe the CJK pages. For WebCGM (or *any* internationalized standard), there is a real issue -- how do you define a limited repertoire within the tens-of-thousands of recorded unicode characters? I think it is intractable in general, to write it (unicode-page restrictions) into the WebCGM standard itself, unless that standard is *only* for the use of ATA and S1000D interchange. Otherwise, it has to be done in specific Cascading Profiles, or local (e.g., East Asian) technical communities that define their limitations (de facto or de jure). On the other hand, maybe someone does have a restricted set in mind, that would suffice in WebCGM itself and would pass W3C muster? (E.g., maybe western european, plus eastern european, plus CJK.) Thoughts? Proposals? -Lofton. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] > > Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 2:12 PM > > To: Benoit Bezaire; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] 24 hours to comment > > > > Benoit (& everyone) -- > > > > At 08:25 AM 3/30/2006 -0500, Benoit Bezaire wrote: > > >[...] > > >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). > > > > How about this one: > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200604/msg00002.html > > > > Is it less harsh, while still clarifying the confusion? > > > > -Lofton. > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]