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/

Fixed.

>> 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/

Fixed.

>> 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,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 413 624 6676
www.marklogic.com

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 September 2011 13:30:46 GMT