[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]