W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > September 2011

Re: Editorial comments

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:30:04 -0400
To: public-html-xml@w3.org
CC: <timeless@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <m21uv2m7tv.fsf@nwalsh.com>
timeless <timeless@gmail.com> writes:
> http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/snapshot/
>> Where HTML goes to great lengths to defined how
> s/defined/define/


>> the most successful approach is likely to involve parsing the XML
>> with an XML parser and the HTML with an HTML parser<span
>> class="revision-deleted"><span>, combining the resulting DOMs
>> through some other process.</span></span></p>
> This deletion removed the only period from your `sentence`.

Indeed. I fixed that when I removed that change markup.

>> Also, conforming trees that have tr elements as children of table
>> elements will be replaced with semantically equivalent but tree-wise
>> different construct where the tr elements gain a tbody parent which
>> is a child of the table.
> s/construct/constructs/


>> This is very much like the escaped markup case where downstream
>> processing must be sophisticated enough to reconstruct the authors
>> intent.
> s/authors/author's/

This error seems to have been overtaken by other changes.

>> Working out all of the details to assure that the necessary error
>> correction produced expected results in all cases might be tedious
> do you mean `produced`, `produces`, or 'produce'?

"produces", I think.

> I was asked to suggest that you use a spell checker on the document as
> part of the publication steps (if you feel that the TAG should
> recommend that all documents include this as part of their process,
> please feel free to make such a recommendation).
> * "arbirary"
> * "concatentation"
> * "gauranteed"
> * "simulataneously"

Yes. Fair point. I will run the spellchecker over it.

> Since you reference DOM, perhaps you could add it to references. You
> could also actually reference XML and HTML5 in references.

I added the HTML5 reference. I don't think we day "DOM" in the
explicitly W3C DOM sense anywhere. As the introduction notes, "...we
use the term 'DOM' throughout as a general term for any of these
possible representations."

Thank you for your comments. Apologies again for the delay in responding
to them.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 413 624 6676

Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 13:30:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:28 UTC