WebCGM Teleconf
01 Jul 2009


See also: IRC log


Thierry, Dave_C, Stuart, Lofton
benoit, don




roll call 11:00am ET,

<scribe> Scribe: stuart

<lofton> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2009Jul/0000.html

<lofton> minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2009May/0008.html

Comments on 2nd LCWD

There has been one comment so far.

<tmichel> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2009Jun/0010.html

<tmichel> +q

It is felt that it would be a lot of work to create a normative schema and would require a complete rewrite of chapter 4. That said, we might consider writing a schema as a non normative technical report.

A similiar situation happened in SMIL and they used a tool to create a relax ng schema and included it in an informative appendix

<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.

<lofton> (So ... why bother, if you're not going to use the greater capability of the schema.)

<lofton> TM also said: there is no W3C requirement for Schema vs. DTD.

<lofton> TM: also invite commenter to make a contribution of a first cut at a schema.

<lofton> SG: Relax NG or Schema?

The comment also included a question about CSS.

<lofton> my reply about CSS: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2009Jun/0009.html

<lofton> I'll summarize for the WG list and we can incorporate it into our response (in 2 weeks).

Implementation Report

Thierry: suggests that we include the 2.1 tests in the impliementation report

<tmichel> we should have a test suite covering 2.0 and 2.1

<tmichel> 2.1 should be delivered in a subdirectory

<tmichel> and we should have a implementation covering only the delta 21 tests

<lofton> CR-exit and Impl. Report should *only* concern 2.1 changes (add-on functionality of 2.1).

<tmichel> +1

<lofton> A fine detail that needs to be answered: should the old 2.0 (& 1.0) tests be updated in the ProfileEd string?

<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.

<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?

<lofton> Ultimately: all ProfileEd should be 2.1.

I (SG) will look into seeing how hard it would be to write a script to change the profileED to 2.1

<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.

next F2F: Ann Arbor

The two main items will be the CR transition changes and the test fest.

it is unknown how much of the schedule would be consumed with this.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/07/02 16:11:24 $