W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: BP comments

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:36:50 +0900
Message-ID: <47819042.5030507@w3.org>
To: Yves Savourel <yves@opentag.com>
CC: public-i18n-its@w3.org

Hi Yves, Jirka, all,

Yves Savourel wrote:
> Hi Jirka,
>
> Thanks for going through the document.
>   
+1
> 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 ==&gt; ? 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 &gt;. 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?
>
>   
the W3C manual of style says at 
http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Punctuation
[[Remember you are typing HTML or XML not TeX. Use quotation marks 
rather than grave accents and apostrophes to quote text (e.g., ``value'' 
should read "value").]]
I'm not aware of any additional, language-specific style rules for 
quotes. I think typewriter quotes are fine.
>   
>> 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?
>   
I'm fine with these changes.
>
>   
>> 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'???
>   
that's a typo, I just fixed it in CVS
>
>   
>> 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.
>   
fine by me, I removed the attribute, together with xmlns:xsi in CVS.
>
>   
>> 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.
>   
the schemas are rather long. Are you sure you really want to show
http://www.w3.org/International/its/techniques/xmlspec/xmlspec.dtd
http://www.w3.org/International/its/techniques/xmlspec/xmlspec.rnc
http://www.w3.org/International/its/techniques/xmlspec/xmlspec.xsd
in the BP document?

Felix
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 02:37:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:09 UTC