RE: REVIEW: Chapter 1

["Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>]

Good job, Rob...

dave

Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
Boeing Commercial Airplane
206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734
david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com


> _____________________________________________ 
> From: 	Robert Orosz [mailto:roboro@auto-trol.com] 
> Sent:	Friday, May 09, 2008 3:58 PM
> To:	CGM Open WebCGM TC (E-mail)
> Subject:	REVIEW: Chapter 1
> 
> First, I used WinMerge (a visual diff tool) to compare the XHTML file
> with the 2.0 version. I saw no evidence for unintended changes or that
> an earlier 2.0 version of the file was used as the starting point for
> the 2.1 work.
> 
> 1.1
> No changes.
> 
> 
> 1.2
> This is normative stuff, so I started a separate issue thread on what
> I found.
> 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200805/msg00040.html
> 
> The rest of the chapter is informative, so I guess that makes my
> comments editorial by definition.
> 
> 
> 1.3
> First, I have a couple of general observations:
> 
> 1) Some of the references to W3C Recommendations point to a
> date-specific version, e.g. DOM Level 3 Core, Xpointer Framework,
> while others point to the latest version, e.g. SVG 1.1, HTML 4.01. Is
> there a particular reason for that, or did it just turn out that way?
> Should we standardize on one or the other?
> 
> 2) There is inconsistent usage of punctuation at the end of each
> reference. All references end with a URL. Most end with a space
> followed by a period (makes it easy to copy and paste the URL I
> suppose, although most of these have an anchor element that you can
> click on to navigate to the destination). Some end with a period
> immediately after the URL, e.g. HTML 4.0.1, while others don't end
> with a period at all, e.g. UAAG 1.0.
> 
> DOM Level 3 Events - This is now back on the standards track, and the
> latest version is a working draft.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-DOM-Level-3-Events-20071221/
> 
> Is it appropriate to cite it here? I know that it would definitely not
> be allowed as a normative reference. If it is not appropriate to cite
> it, then we could always replace this with DOM Level 2 Events.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/
> 
> CSS 2.0 - CSS 2.1 is at the candidate recommendation stage.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
> 
> As I mentioned above, I'm unsure of the exact rules regarding citing
> "work in progress" documents as informative references. CSS 2.1 is
> intended to replace CSS 2.0, so we might want to consider citing CSS
> 2.1 here if the rules allow it.
> 
> 
> 1.4
> This starts out with:
> 
> "The scope of this WebCGM(tm) ..."
> 
> I'm curious ... who owns the WebCGM trademark? W3C makes no mention of
> it.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/ipr-notice-20021231#W3C_Tradem
> arks
> 
> It can't be OASIS can it? The term "WebCGM" was in use long before
> WebCGM 2.0 became an OASIS (and W3C) standard.
> 
> If WebCGM is indeed a trademark, shouldn't that be acknowledged in a
> more prominent place, e.g. the title page, instead of being buried in
> the middle of an introductory chapter containing mostly informative
> material? Shouldn't the trademark owner be mentioned somewhere, e.g.
> in the "Notices" section? Maybe this should be an issue thread?
> 
> The next to last paragraph contains "@@WebCGM 2.0@@". Was that
> intended to be an anchor element, with a href attribute pointing to
> the WebCGM 2.0 specification?
> 
> 
> 1.5
> No changes.
> 
> 
> 1.6
> The second sentence contains "CGM 1.0." I assume that was intended to
> be "WebCGM 1.0."
> 
> The first list item has "[grfreq]" immediately after the anchor. It
> doesn't appear to be used anywhere else.
> 
> 
> 1.7
> I find the last sentence awkward for two reasons:
> 
> 1) It contains "specific-industry" which sounds strange to me. The
> previous sentence has "industry-specific" which sounds better.
> 
> 2) "... and defined is defined in ...". I stumbled over that one too.
> One way to fix it would be to change the second "defined" to
> "described." Another way would be to strike "and defined."
> 
> 
> 1.8
> No changes.
> 
> 
> 1.9
> The list does not mention Chapter 9. By the way, the terms "chapter"
> and "section" are used interchangeably, and I'm not sure that is
> correct usage of those words. For example, Chapter 1 begins with "This
> section's ..." and ends with "Back to top of chapter." Chapter 2
> begins with "This chapter is informative (non-normative)." and Chapter
> 3 goes back to "section." Merriam-Webster defines chapter and section
> as follows:
> 
> chapter  1 a: a main division of a book
> section  2: a distinct part or portion of something written as   a:  a
> subdivision of a chapter
> 
> Based on those definitions, I would argue that Chapter 2 titled
> "WebCGM concepts" contains section 2.2 titled "Picture content and
> usage" which in turn contains subsection 2.2.2 titled "Drawing model."
> 
> By the way number 2. There are two different styles in use at the
> beginning of each chapter regarding the placement of the main heading,
> i.e. the h1 element. The first places it after the Table of Contents,
> e.g. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. The second places it before the Table of
> Contents, e.g. Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. I prefer the latter style.
> 
> 
> 1.10
> The first sentence, "This subsection ..." is redundant since the
> chapter defaults at the beginning to an informative chapter. 
> 
> In the ISO Central Secretariat's address, add "International
> Organization for Standardization (ISO)" as the second line. It may not
> be necessary, but that is how it appears on ISO's web site. Also,
> replace "rue de Varembe" with "ch. de la Voie-Creuse" and "Geneve"
> with "Geneva".
> 
> Replace the registration authority's address with the following:
> 
> Joint Interoperability Test Command
> ATTN: JTF NITFS Registration Authority (ISO/IEC 9973)
> P.O. Box 12798
> Fort Huachuca, AZ  85670-2798
> USA
> 
> There are two links to the CGM Open web site in close proximity. Was
> the second one intended to go under the "The following World Wide Web
> sites have more information on CGM:" heading?
> 
> ISO/JTC1/SC24 - This link now redirects to BSI's home page. I think
> the only WWW presence that SC24 currently has is in ISO's "Livelink"
> system. Lofton and I encountered this a couple of years ago when we
> were working on Corrigendum 1. The new URL is:
> 
> http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=327973&objAct
> ion=browse&sort=name
> 
> I didn't find much useful information on CGM there, so we might want
> to delete the SC24 link.
> 
> That is all. I will send in my Chapter 2 review separately.
> 
> Rob << File: ATT3702771.txt >>