Rqts: font substitution; and V3-defaults

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

All --

My review assignment is Chapter 9.  It is hard to do it because we
seem to be wandering around and revisiting the requirements.

1.) On 12/12/07 we voted to approve the requirements.  Font
substitution is included.  V3-defaults is included.

[1]
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200712/msg00038.html
[2]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/26392/WebCGM%202_1%20Requirements.htm

2.) That requirements document
references a prior meeting minutes at which the vendors committed to the
requirements items:

[3]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/25856/20071024_WebCGM_TC_Telecon_minutes.pdf

3.) In minutes after 12/12/07, we discussed details some
more:

[4a]
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cgmo-webcgm/download.php/26757/20080109_WebCGM_TC_Telecon_minutes.pdf
[4b]
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cgmo-webcgm/download.php/26854/20080116_WebCGM_TC_Telecon_minutes.pdf
[4c] ...etc...

4.) In one email ISSUE thread, I raised issues about packaging. 
Dieter and I, at least, seemed to agree on this:  an external file,
that can be invoked once per viewer, but it would be okay to have it also
(possibly via external reference) in a prelude section of the XCF. 
We did not discuss/agree details about how the once-per-viewer file would
otherwise be associated with the viewer's invocation.

[5a]
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200801/msg00021.html
[5b]
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200801/msg00025.html

5.) While acknowledging that there are those who want to abandon one
(Font sub) or the other (V3-defaults) or both, I claim that the TC
majority still supports both.  Waffling on the basic requirement is
a *big* problem, IMO -- it is how standards fall badly off their
development schedules.  We need to move on after agreeing on
requirements.

6.) There are details in the 2.1 draft that *do* need attention -- for
example, how the capabilities are encoded and invoked.  This is a
lesser problem that we can resolve once we focus on it and stop waffling
on the basic requirements.

So that I can continue my review assignment, I want to propose therefore
that we immediately (next telecon) put this to rest.  If someone
moves to reverse the previous basic requirements decisions, then we poll
the members.  If a majority wants the requirement removed, then
obviously we will do so.  

Else let's get on with the details.

-Lofton.