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: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Re: [LC Review]


Lofton,

Done. I've sent an email with the proposed solution (along with a gentle
reminder that Corrigendum 2 updates the T.14.5 row in the PPF) to the public
W3C list.

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 10:09 AM
To: Robert Orosz; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Re: [LC Review]


All --

No one has objected or taken exception to Rob's suggested solution.  Going 
once, going twice, ...

I would therefore like to suggest that Rob send his suggested solution to 
the public WG list where he sent the original comment (e.g., as a reply to 
himself).

To be clear, Rob or anyone is free to do that anyway -- the spec 
review/change token is in W3C now.  But I am seeking a methodology of 
coordination to avoid the risk of an extra OASIS-W3C spec 
cycle.  Specifically, if a comment were to be approved by the WG, put in 
the spec, and later rejected by the TC, then we would have an extra 
back-and-forth cycle to coordinate.

Therefore it seems prudent for us to closely monitor the comments and 
changes that are being considered by the WG, since we have several 
TC-not-WG members.  (In any case, OASIS is also a member of W3C.)

Regards,
-Lofton.

At 10:45 AM 10/6/2008 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>Rob, All --
>
>While changing to "number of characters" is somewhat more elegant and 
>direct, on the other hand it has more serious impact on the document and 
>on implementations (I'm thinking, e.g., of MetaCheck code) than simply 
>upping the number of octets.  So I have no problem with that latter
solution.
>
>Comments, anyone else?  I'd like to get TC views, including the TC-not-WG 
>members, before processing it further in the WG.
>
>-Lofton.
>
>At 08:19 AM 9/23/2008 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
>>Lofton,
>>
>>I think the simplest and most expedient approach would be to simply double
>>the octet limits.  Otherwise you have to put in verbage defining
characters,
>>etc.  It could get a little messy, especially if you try to squeeze it
into
>>a PPF table cell.
>>
>>Rob
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:13 AM
>>To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] Re: [LC Review]
>>
>>
>>All --
>>
>>Rob has submitted this comment to the public list of the WebCGM WG:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2008Sep/0001.html
>>
>>It would be good for the TC to discuss it also, since we have some
>>WebCGM-ers who aren't in the WG.
>>
>>Rob ... do you have a specific proposal to kick off discussion in the
>>TC?  (Double the octet limits?  Change the limits to characters instead of
>>octets?)  Some solutions are easier than others, and different solutions
>>have more or less impact on existing software.
>>
>>(You are right, that users of UTF-16 get half as many characters as users
>>of IsoLatin1.  And then there is UTF-8, which could range from
>>same-as-Latin1, to *lots* fewer characters, depending on the
>>language.  Since WebCGMs are overwhelmingly English-language, in practice
>>it is same-as-Latin1.)
>>
>>Regards,
>>-Lofton.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>


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