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: ISSUE: Normative references in section 1.2 need updating.

Hi all,

As John McLaughlin likes to say ...

Issue 1
ISO/IEC 10646

This currently lists ISO/IEC 10646-1:2000 and ISO/IEC 10646-2:2000.  ISO/IEC
10646:2003 cancels and replaces both. Should we reference the English
version as our normative reference like we do for ISO/IEC 8632:1999?

Issue 2
ISO/IEC 10646-UTF8

See above.  ISO/IEC 10646:2003 cancels and replaces all previous additions
and amendments. Annex D defines UTF-8 if we wish to have a separate
reference for UTF-8.

Issue 3
ISO/IEC 8632:1999(E)

ITTF has relocated their Publicly Available Standards web page. The old URL
redirects to the new one, but you never know how long that will last. The
new URL is

Issue 4
ISO/IEC 8632:1999/Cor 2:2007

I think this reference is fine, but why isn't Cor 1:2006 also listed? I
think either both should be listed (my preference) or neither (which relies
on the reader to find them). Listing only one implies that the other one is
not relevant to WebCGM.

Issue 5
RFC 1951

I've read in the past (although I can't find it now on the RFC Editor's Web
site) that the IETF considers the plain text versions of the RFCs to be the
only normative versions. I believe W3C has a similar rule regarding XHTML
versions of their recommendations versus other formats such as PDF and
PostScript. I think we should change the reference here to
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1951.txt just to be on the safe side.

Issue 6
XML 1.0

XML 1.0 is now in its fourth edition. The list of editors is the same, and
the publication date is August 2006 (with in place edits in September 2006).
The URL is http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/. Alternatively,
perhaps we could just reference XML 1.0 generically (without reference to a
specific edition) and reference the "latest" URL

Issue 7
Namespaces in XML

Here we do have a generic reference along with the generic URL, but we
mention the publication date of the first edition (January 1999). This is
now in its second edition, so the publication date needs to be changed to
August 2006. Also, there is an additional editor R. Tobin which should be
added at the end of the editors list.

Issue 8
RFC 3629

Isn't this redundant? We already reference UTF-8 separately (see issue 2

Issue 9
RFC 2781

Again, isn't this redundant? Annex C of ISO/IEC 10646:2003 defines UTF-16 if
we wish to have a separate reference for UTF-16.

Issue 10

We have language here that states "as updated from time to time...," but we
might as well start with the latest version at the time of publication of
WebCGM 2.1. Right now that would be version 5.1.

The Unicode Consortium. The Unicode Standard, Version 5.1.0, defined by: The
Unicode Standard, Version 5.0 (Boston, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2007. ISBN
0-321-48091-0), as amended by Unicode 5.1.0

Issue 11

We have a normative reference to PNG which forms the basis of compression
type 9 for the Tile element. Why isn't there also a normative reference to
JPEG which forms the basis of compression type 7 for the Tile element? It
could be either ITU-T Rec. T.81 (1992) or ISO/IEC 10918-1:1994.

That is all for now.


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