RE: BP comments

Hi Jirka,

Thanks for going through the document.
Here are my notes.

BTW, Felix and Richard, please make sure to read as there are questions to you.



> Example 22:
> XPath expression //img/@alt[../@role='ui'] can be written as 
> //img[@role='ui']/@alt which is easier to read. I already 
> made this change in CVS.

Thanks.


> Example 24:
> Ed. note: Shouldn't the ==> be ==> ? Otherwise, what's 
> the point of the example?
> It is not necessary to escape > in XML (except when it is 
> preceded by ]]). There is still ampersand to be escaped.
> I think that example is OK and I have removed editorial note.

Good point on >. I'll changed it to have 2 escape cases in the exmaple.


> Example 27:
> I have slightly improved identation for better readability.

OK.


> General issue with quotes. We are currently using typewriter 
> quotes like "quote" in prose. Shouldn't we use proper English 
> "quotes"? Is this covered by W3C style guide?

I don't know the answer to this one.
Felix? Richard?


> Section 5.1.1: Integration of ITS into XHTML Example is 
> labeled as "non-conformant XHTML". Document is really non-conformant 
> as defined in XHTML spec. But XHTML conformance definition is 
> really silly. As this BP is for normal people and not standard wonks 
> who knows oddities of spec what about removing "non-conformant" 
> adjective completely? I think that current wording can scare people
> little bit.
> Then sentence "There are three ways to use ITS with XHTML and 
> keep the XHTML document conformant:" can be changed to "There are 
> three ways to use ITS with XHTML and keep the XHTML document valid:"

That's one for Felix. Felix?


> Section 5.1.2.1: There is * (asterisks) after word "description" 
> in attribute definition. Does * has some purpose here or is this 
> just a typo?

Not sure. Felix what's the * for in '("alert"|"description"*)'? that 'description' is optional but not 'alert'???


> Example 42:
> I would suggest removing xsi:schemaLocation attribute as it is 
> usually bad practice to tightly bing document to particular schema.

Your section Felix, you decide.


> Section 5.3:
> There are only links to schemas, but source listings of 
> schemas are not present. In other section we usually show 
> schema listing. Shouldn't we unify this?

Yes, it would be good, if we have time.


> Example 58:
> I have removed CVS $Id:$ tag from source code

Thanks.


> Example 60:
> I have added new terminology elements as suggested by 
> comments from Kara.

Thanks.


Cheers,
-yves

Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2007 05:52:51 UTC