Disposition of comments for WebCGM 2.0

This version
Thierry Michel, W3C

Copyright ©2005 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply.

A- Disposition of comments for WebCGM 2.0 sent during Last Call Review

Review by W3C Working Groups.

These are the collected Last Call comments on WebCGM 2.0 Last Call WD published June 23rd, which were sent to the public WebCGM mailing list public-webcgm@w3.org (archives) and responses to those comments.

The WebCGM 2.0 Last Call Review annoucement was sent to the chairs@w3.org list and sent to the public-webcgm@w3.org list on Mon, 26 Jun 2006.

The 2 Last Call Review comments have the following status (status on 25thAugust 2006):

    1. [LC Review] of WebCGM 2.0 from I18N WG [Status: Comment answered / agreed by Requestor]
    2. [LC Review] from Steven Pemberton [Status: Comment answered / agreed by Requestor]

Notification of these Last Call responses were sent to all of the commenters and sent to public-webcgm@w3.org list. Responses agreed by the requester will be included in the WebCGM 2.0 CR version.

Review by external Groups.

The following comments were sent to the public WG WebCGM mailing list public-webcgm-wg@w3.org (archives)

B- Disposition of comments for WebCGM 2.0 for CR

These are the collected comments on WebCGM 2.0 Last Call WD sent after the Last Call Review. Responses agreed by the requester will be included in the WebCGM 2.0 PR version.

  1. Comments for WebCGM (Re: Action Item: From Today's PF Call) [Status: comment answered/ Preliminary agreement from Requestor]

    Issue 1: [LC Review] of WebCGM 2.0 from I18N WG

Hello, These are comments on WebCGM 2.0, http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/
sent on behalf of the i18n core working group. 
Best regards,
Felix Sasaki. Comment 1 (editorial): <title> elements in some files are confusing It seems that some <title> elements contain "OASIS CGM Open specification - ...", e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/WebCGM20-TOC.html "OASIS CGM Open specification - WebCGM Profile - Expanded Table of Contents" This is just confusing and should be fixed. Comment 2 (editorial): Reference to Unicode In http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/WebCGM20-Intro.html#norm-ref, you have two references to Unicode, one generic reference, and one to version 4.01. Is there a reason for that? If not, please reference to Unicode following the description at http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-RefUnicode, that is, only in a generic manner. Comment 3 (editorial): Why not Unicode as the default encoding? In http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/WebCGM20-Concepts.html#webcgm_2_4, (sec. 2.5.4), you describe isolatin1 as the default "character set". We would propose to describe UTF-8 as the default character encoding, and to use the term "character encoding" instead of "character set". See also http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#C020.
WebCGM WG Response:
The WebCGM WG thank you for your comments on WebCGM 2.0. The WebCGM WG has the following responses to your comments:

Response to Comment 1:
Agreed, we will fix it. Thanks for catching this. The <title> elements should match the text that immediately precedes the horizontal rule at the top of each chapter.

Response to Comment 2:
Originally we had considered that both generic and specific were appropriate, as described in CharMod C063 [1] (and its immediately preceding comment). Upon further discussion, the WebCGM WG believes that generic alone suffices. The References section will be changed to contain only the generic reference.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#C063

Response to Comment 3:
The basic reason is "legacy". WebCGM 2.0 is an upgrade of WebCGM 1.0, which is a profile of ISO CGM:1999. In ISO CGM:1999 (and :1992, :1987 before it), the default is isolatin1. Because the default is implicit (nothing in the CGM file declares it), and because of the mechanism which ISO CGM specifies for changing to a non-default character encoding for a metafile instance, in fact it would be technically ill-specified (i.e., unimplementable) for a profile such as WebCGM 2.0 to prescribe that the implicit default is other than isolatin1.

We agree that WebCGM 2.0 should use the proper terminology, "character encoding", where ever possible. In some places it is not possible, such as the proper names of ISO CGM:1999 elements (e.g., "CHARACTER SET LIST"). But we will make appropriate changes in the descriptive, prose parts of the profile.

The resolution is archived at:

The WG response is sent to Issuer at:

The response from Issuer is archived at:

Issue 2: [LC Review] from Steven (HTML/XForms WG)

One thing that struck me was how far you have to read before you find out
what WebCGM actually is. I think that at very least the abstract should say
what it is. For the uninitiated it is not until section 1.4 that you start
getting an inkling that it is something to do with 2D graphics.

Steven Pemberton
WebCGM WG Response:
The WebCGM WG thank you for your comments on WebCGM 2.0. The WebCGM WG has the following responses to your comments:

We agree that WebCGM 2.0 abstract should have a wording to introduce what webCGM is about. Therefore, we will add the following text in the WebCGM 2.0 abstract, as a first introduction sentence:

Computer Graphics Metafile (CGM) is an ISO standard, defined by ISO/IEC 8632:1999, for the interchange of 2D vector and mixed vector/raster graphics. WebCGM is a profile of CGM, which adds Web linking and is optimized for Web applications in technical illustration, electronic documentation, geophysical data visualization, and similar fields. First published (1.0) in 1999 and followed by a second (errata) release in 2001, WebCGM unifies potentially diverse approaches to CGM utilization in Web document applications. It therefore represents a significant interoperability agreement amongst major users and implementers of the ISO CGM standard.

The discussion is archived at:

The resolution is archived at:

The response from Issuer is archived at:

End of LC comments

Issue 3: Comments for WebCGM (Re: Action Item: Re: Draft Minutes From Today's PF Call)

Hi Chirs,

We discussed from the viewpoint of accessibility (mainly non-visual
We think that if WebCGM has these capabilities and additional guides, it
becomes more useful for users of non-visual interface.

1. Capability to assign "navigation order" for layers or regions.
Cuurently users might have to navigate based on DOM structure.
If there exists the attribute to assign "navigation order" and viewer
support, it is useful for both authors and users.

2. Additional use case and viewer behavior definition for the

2-1. There are several text attributes, such as "name", "desc" and
"screentip", for the objects.
So, we think we have to define how viwers/AT tools handle them.

For example,
  Use "name" as an ALT attribute in HTML.
  Viewer notifies users if there exist "desc" or "screentip".
  Users decide whether they will read it or not.

2-2. In addition to 2-1, grobject, para and subpara can have "linkuri"
In this case, these objects become "hyperlink" and viewer must read "desc"
of linkurl at first.
And, to keep them accessible, it might be better that "desc" attribute is
"REQUIRED" for "linkuri" element.

2-3 In the case where "visibility" attribute is "off", viewer/AT tools does
not have to "read" text information of the element.

Please forgive me if there exist duplicate comments or these are already
discussed items.

Best regards,
Kentarou Fukuda, Ph.D.
Tokyo Research Laboratory, IBM Japan
Tel: +81-46-215-4659
Preliminary WebCGM WG Response:

The response from Issuer is archived at:


Thierry MICHEL (tmichel@w3.org)

Last Updated:$Date: 2006/09/05 16:40:12 $