Re: [cgmo-webcgm] RE: Review first chapters

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Thanks to Dieter for a thorough review.  There are lots of useful 
corrections in here, and some issues that I can see.  Sorry, my time has 
been completely absorbed elsewhere and I haven't dug into these 
deeply.  I'll start to process them seriously after tomorrow (Wed) telecon, 
and will break out and send substantive issues to the list, for one-by-one 
processing.

One comment that caught my attention was part of Dieter's #14:  "If we 
strike the behaviors from the EBNF, a WebCGM 1.0 file can not be a valid 
WebCGM 2.0 file IMHO."  This refers to our three old object behaviors, 
view_context, highlight, highlight_all.

This is a direct consequence of our definition of "deprecate":  a 
deprecated feature is prohibited for 2.0 generators and 2.0 content, but 
2.0 interpreters (viewers) that support 1.0 must support the feature.  See 
A.2.  We reviewed this definition (borrowed from MathML).  No one commented.

It also affects these things:

** multi-picture
** continued APS
** symbol libraries

These latter were deprecated in 1.0 2nd Release and are (currently) removed 
altogether in 2.0.  And these things:

** viewport PARAM
** some compression types of TILE & BITONAL
** the 3 old object behaviors

These latter are deprecated in 2.0 and may be removed altogether in the future.

It is a tricky issue, how to deprecate and remove something from the 
standard.  No matter how you do it, at some point valid Version n content 
cannot be valid Version n+1 content.  The only alternative is to leave 
everything in the standard forever, as valid content.

Back to the EBNF ... it defines the version 2.0 language.  If the 3 obj. 
behaviors are deprecated, according to our definition of deprecated, they 
are not part of the 2.0 language.

If anyone has an alternative, coherent, actionable way to define 
deprecation and handle things that we thing should be removed from the 
standard, please present it.

Regards,
-Lofton.

At 11:16 AM 8/31/2005 +0200, Dieter  Weidenbrück wrote:
>yes, and here we go again with attachment...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dieter Weidenbrück [mailto:dieter@itedo.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:16 AM
> > To: 'Lofton Henderson'
> > Cc: 'cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org'
> > Subject: Review first chapters
> >
> > Lofton,
> >
> > I did a review of the first chapters. I still need to work on
> > 4 thru 6, but I don't have the time right now.
> >
> > Mostly typos and small things, only one real issue as far as
> > I can see, which are the picture behaviors
> >
> > Language and punctuation related comments may be wrong, if
> > so, forgive me.
> >
> > Comments welcome.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dieter
> >