W3C

- DRAFT -

WebCGM Teleconference
30 Aug 2007

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Lofton, Thierry, Dave, Stuart
Regrets
Dieter, Chris, Don, Benoit
Chair
Lofton
Scribe
Dave

Contents

 

 

Routine WG business

None

WebCGM 1.0 errata

General questions

E09: drawing model descriptions of 1.0 & 2.0

lofton - since this erratum is rejected, should it be moved to bottom of the errata or deleted?

thierry - if it's from inside the working group we need to get agreement from the reporter

<thierry> if the comment is from outside of the WebCGM WG we should mention it in rejected section

lofton - since the source of the errata is lofton, we can reject it with his agreement and delete it.

Resolution: E09 is rejected and removed

E08: confusion about multiple viewers, 'name' in <object> and <param>

<thierry> E08: should add a link to WebCGM 2.0 showing proper solution using 2.0 DOM. This erratum does not affect 2.0

<thierry> Resolution: All errata content are accepted, as there is no comment from the WG

<lofton> Discussion about class: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Aug/0026.html

thierry - if we choose to publish errata as Class 3, it requires a public review

thierry - after a one month review of the errata, we are supposed to publish a new recommendataion

lofton - it's not clear from reading the process document that a new recommendation is required

thierry - in our charter we indicated an intention of publishing a new recommendation

<lofton> 7.6.3 says:

<lofton> While the second approach is designed so that a Working Group can establish normative corrections quickly, it does not obviate the need to incorporate changes into an edited version of the Recommendation. In particular, when corrections are numerous or complex, integrating them into a single document is important for interoperability; readers might otherwise interpret the corrections differently.

lofton - since it is unlikely that WebCGM 1.0 will be picked up for implementation, it might suffice to just publish the errata instead of the whole recommendation

lofton - republishing 1.0 might involve a lot of work to bring up to current W3C pubrules and that work is probably unnecessary

lofton - we don't need to make this decision right now, but it's something to consider

thierry - it's up to the working group to decide whether to just publish the errata or a new recommendation

<thierry> Quoting from the Charter: Collect and publish any pending WebCGM 1.0 errata. If required, collect these together and publish a WebCGM 1.0 third release.

<thierry> http://www.w3.org/2006/03/webcgm-charter.html#coordination

lofton - since we are missing 4 members, we need to open an email discussion to document the way forward on the republishing issue

The current participants agree to only publishing the errata

<thierry> The 4 people present during the call agree that an errata poage would suffice. Not need to publish a WebCGM 1.0 third release.

<scribe> ACTION: lofton will send out an email to get agreement from the whole WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action01]

E01: clarification of non-URI characters, IRIs, RFC-2396/3986

lofton - how much detail do we need to put into the errata document to specify the actual change?

<trackbot-ng> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/track/

thierry - there are no formal guidelines of how to do it. It just needs to be clear

lofton - understands what to do now

<thierry> use links when it is clear enough like in E01 second item "Replace the entire WebCGM 1.0 section 3.1.1.4, including title, with the entire WebCGM 2.0 section 3.1.1.4."

<thierry> else should copy paragraph to be changed and show new paragrah with changed text

RESOLUTION: E01 is class 2

<thierry> REsolution: E01 seems like a class 2

E02: editorial errors in 3.4 <OBJECT> specification

<scribe> ACTION: lofton to record 2.0 erratum regarding case sensitivity [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action02]

An explicit sentence to the effect that the value of the param attributes is case insensitive

<thierry> <OBJECT DATA="xxx.cgm" TYPE="image/cgm;Version=4;ProfileId=WebCGM" WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="100" /> would be the proper writing

<trackbot-ng> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/track/

RESOLUTION: E02 is class 2

E03: correction (->example) of text search matching in para (3.2.1.3)

RESOLUTION: E03 is class 2

<thierry> RESOLUTION: E03 is a clarification

E04: alignment of 3.3 & 3.1.2.3 regarding 'name' occurrence in 'para' & 'subpara'

RESOLUTION: E04 is class 2

E05: clarification of viewer handling of MITRE LIMIT

RESOLUTION: E05 is class 3

E06: contradictory specifications of object behaviors in 3.1.2.4 & 3.2.1.1

RESOLUTION: E06 is class 3

E07: ambiguous applicability of "128" limit in CLOSED FIGURE (PPF)

RESOLUTION: E07 is class 2

E08: confusion about multiple viewers, 'name' in <object> and <param>

RESOLUTION: E08 is class 2 since the paragraph is non-normative that is beyond the scope of 1.0

E09: drawing model descriptions of 1.0 & 2.0

RESOLUTION: rejected and deleted

thierry - suggest we move E12 to E09 to avoid a gap

E10: deviations of WebCGM 1.0 Model Profile from normative ISO CGM standard

defer until lofton has done his work on evaluating the tables

E11: ambiguity on position of radius in degenerate elliptical arc close

<scribe> ACTION: lofton to complete evaluation on E10 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action03]

RESOLUTION: E11 is class 2

E12: broken contact address for problem reports

We will move this to E09

RESOLUTION: E12 is class 1

<thierry> E12 is class 1 and will be renumbered E09 (replacing the deleted E09)

<trackbot-ng> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/track/

next steps

next telecon 2 weeks from today

target of telecon is final WG approval for the WebCGM 1.0 errata document (which then goes for 4-week public review)

also on the agenda for the next meeting, try to come to closure on dispostion of errata for 2.0

<thierry> Thierry sends regrets for the next telecon 2 weeks from today

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: lofton to complete evaluation on E10 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: lofton to record 2.0 erratum regarding case sensitivity [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: lofton will send out an email to get agreement from the whole WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/08/30 21:22:07 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128  of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: davec
Inferring ScribeNick: davec
Found ScribeNick: davec

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Dave_Cruikshank E01 E02 E03 E04 E05 E06 E07 E08 E09 E10 E11 E12 Lofton_Henderson Thierry davec lofton scribenick trackbot-ng
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy


WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Dieter, Chris, Don)
Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Ben

Regrets: Ben
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Aug/0022.html
Got date from IRC log name: 30 Aug 2007
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html
People with action items: an email lofton out send will

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]