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.