IRC log of webcgm on 2009-07-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:04:55 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webcgm
15:04:55 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:05:06 [stuart]
Zakim, this is WebCGM
15:05:06 [Zakim]
ok, stuart; that matches GA_WebCGM()11:00AM
15:05:10 [Zakim]
15:05:25 [stuart]
Scribe: stuart
15:05:26 [Dave]
Dave has joined #webcgm
15:05:31 [stuart]
chair: lofton
15:05:39 [stuart]
regrets: benoit, don
15:05:58 [stuart]
Meeting: WebCGM Teleconf
15:06:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.228.aaaa
15:07:18 [stuart]
15:07:22 [lofton]
15:07:44 [lofton]
15:08:22 [stuart]
present: Thierry, Dave C, Stuart, Lofton
15:08:58 [lofton]
zakim, +1.425.228.aaaa is Dave
15:08:58 [Zakim]
+Dave; got it
15:09:05 [stuart]
topic: roll call 11:00am ET,
15:10:28 [stuart]
topic: Comments on 2nd LCWD
15:11:14 [stuart]
There has been one comment so far.
15:11:14 [tmichel]
15:13:01 [tmichel]
15:13:11 [stuart]
It is felt that it would be a lot onf work to create a normative schema and would require a complete rewrite of chapter 4
15:14:11 [stuart]
That said, we might consider writing a schema as a non normative technical report.
15:15:59 [stuart]
A similiar situation happened in SMIL and they used a tool to create a relax ng schema and included it in an informative appendix
15:16:44 [lofton]
As TM pointed out: SMIL used a tool to convert DTD to Relax NG, but the result of course has no greater richness than the DTD.
15:17:06 [lofton]
(So ... why bother, if you're not going to use the greater capability of the schema.)
15:17:29 [lofton]
TM also said: there is no W3C requirement for Schema vs. DTD.
15:19:24 [lofton]
TM: also invite commenter to make a contribution of a first cut at a schema.
15:19:35 [lofton]
SG: Relax NG or Schema?
15:36:47 [stuart]
topic: Implementation Report
15:36:54 [lofton]
lofton has joined #webcgm
15:38:33 [stuart]
Thierry: suggests that we include the 2.1 tests in the impliementation report
15:38:57 [tmichel]
we should have a test suite covering 2.0 and 2.1
15:39:12 [tmichel]
2.1 should be delivered in a subdirectory
15:39:30 [tmichel]
and we should have a implementation covering only the delta 21 tests
15:39:40 [Dave]
gotta step away for a minute
15:40:24 [lofton]
CR-exit and Impl. Report should *only* concern 2.1 changes (add-on functionality of 2.1).
15:40:36 [tmichel]
15:43:10 [lofton]
A fine detail that needs to be answered: should the old 2.0 (& 1.0) tests be updated in the ProfileEd string?
15:44:51 [Dave]
i'm back
15:45:22 [lofton]
Or should the test suite, in the Overview.html, explain that tests with ProfileEd:2.0 (or 1.0) are 2.1-valid except for the ProfileEd string.
15:46:30 [lofton]
Or should METAFILE DESCRIPTION elt. in Ch.6 be changed to say that 1.0 and 2.0 are valid entries for ProfileEd in the 2.1 version of WebCGM?
15:47:00 [lofton]
Ultimately: all ProfileEd should be 2.1.
15:47:21 [stuart]
I will look into seeing how hard it would be to write a script to change the profileED to 2.1
15:47:36 [lofton]
But maybe as an expedient, we'll make the first release with the old 1.0 and 2.0, and explanation that future release will fix it to 2.1.
16:03:20 [stuart]
The comment also included a question about CSS.
16:04:30 [lofton]
my reply about CSS:
16:04:31 [lofton]
16:07:06 [lofton]
I'll summarize for the WG list and we can incorporate it into our response (in 2 weeks).
16:07:51 [stuart]
topic: next F2F: Ann Arbor
16:08:52 [stuart]
The two main items will be the CR transition changes and the test fest.
16:09:26 [stuart]
it is unknown how much of the schedule would be consumed with ths.
16:09:31 [stuart]
16:13:01 [stuart]
rrsagent, make logs member
16:13:10 [Zakim]
16:13:15 [stuart]
rrsagent, set logs world
16:13:26 [stuart]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:13:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate stuart
16:13:36 [stuart]
rrsagent, bye
16:13:36 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items