REVIEW: Chapter 2

[Robert Orosz <roboro@auto-trol.com>]

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. In
fact, there were a few editorial improvements. I did find some
(intentionally) added paragraphs that aren't mentioned in the Change Log in
Appendix D. I'll mention those paragraphs specifically when I get to the
section they are in.

The entire chapter is informative. I assume that makes my comments editorial
by definition.

2.1
No changes.


2.2

2.2.1
Change CCITT to ITU-T.

Group 4 should be capitalized, i.e. "Group 4", not "group 4".

The last sentence doesn't seem to belong in the same paragraph as the
previous sentences. The paragraph abruptly jumps from discussing raster
content to scaling WebCGM pictures in Web documents. I checked WebCGM 1.0,
and these were separate paragraphs.

2.2.2
I'm not sure if the alpha blending equations are correct. In the equations
that calculate Cr', Cg', and Cb', Pa is used but Ca is not used. That
doesn't seem quite right to me, however, I don't have time right now to look
into this further.

In the last paragraph, change "canvas are created." to "canvas is created."

2.2.3
No changes, but note that the last paragraph discusses the background param
element within the HTML object element. There is a proposal to deprecate
that element.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200802/msg00082.html


2.3

2.3.1
The first sentence of the last paragraph mentions "XML fragment" in Chapter
3 in connection with the normative content model for version 4 elements. The
only normative specification of content in Chapter 3 uses EBNF notation. So,
the sentence should read something like this:

Chapter 3 normatively defines the detailed content model for version 4
elements in WebCGM using EBNF notation.

2.3.2
I don't like the start of the second to last paragraph. How about this
instead?

Note that 'grnode' was not present in WebCGM 1.0, but was added to WebCGM
2.0 to allow for better hierarchical structure in WebCGM documents.

2.3.3
No changes.

2.3.4
In the name list item, replace "object" with "an object."

In the visibility list item, delete "potentially."

2.3.5
In the second sentence, replace "intelligence" with "intelligent."

In the Figure 2 captions, I would prefer to see all of the type names lower
case. For example,

Figure 2a. WebCGM File Structure - PICBODY
Figure 2b. WebCGM File Structure - LAYER

The reason is twofold, 1) the APS type names, grobject, para, etc. are
case-sensitive as far as I know, and 2) in the actual PNG graphic the names
are all lower case.

2.3.6
The last anchor in the third paragraph targets 3.1.1.4. Shouldn't it go to
3.1.1 instead? In other words, target the entire "IRI fragment
specification" instead of a specific subsection of it.

The term "base-URL" is used once in the seventh paragraph and twice in the
10th paragraph. I think all three occurrences should be replaced with
"base-IRI" in order to be consistent with the rest of the document.


2.4
In the second paragraph, replace the two occurrences of "CGM" with "WebCGM".


2.5

2.5.1
In the raster list item, change "CCITT" to "ITU-T."

The placement of the polysymbol list item implies that it was never allowed
in WebCGM, when in fact it was allowed in WebCGM 1.0 and removed in WebCGM
2.0. Maybe this should be broken out into a third category, "Allowed in
WebCGM 1.0, but now excluded from WebCGM."

2.5.2
In the fourth list item, the two anchor elements target
"http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/"; directly. This runs counter to most of the
rest of the references which add an extra level of indirection, i.e. they
target the appropriate anchor in section 1.2 or 1.3 instead.

In the fourth list item, change "... attribute actually give control ..." to
"... attribute actually gives control ...".

The last two paragraphs are new paragraphs, and their addition is not noted
in the Change log in Appendix D. I'm not sure how accurate the Change Log is
supposed to be.

In the second to last paragraph, second occurrence of the word "definition"
is misspelled "defintion".

In the last paragraph, the word "found" is misspelled "fouund".

2.5.3
No changes.

2.5.4
Here again, the first two anchor elements target
"http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/"; directly. As I mentioned previously in
2.5.2, the general style used throughout the document for references seems
to be targeting the appropriate anchor in section 1.2 or 1.3.

The last two paragraphs are new paragraphs that are not mentioned in the
Change log. Again, I'm not sure if this is important or not, but I thought
I'd mention it.


2.6
No changes.


2.7

2.7.2
The first two anchor elements directly target "http://www.w3.org/";.

The last paragraph has two anchor elements with href attributes that target
non-existent anchors. I think the values of the href attributes were meant
to be "webcgm21-Intro.html#webcgm-20-rqts" and
"webcgm21-Intro.html#webcgm-21-rqts" respectively.


Rob

<<application/ms-tnef>>