W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Someone to review my WD chapter?

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:36:03 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830904070636l2b0dfd9xa03cc31d2d7835dc@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Heya :)

If you want to replace formatting and make it more consistent, I think
we're all happy for you to just go ahead. I have no problem with
replacing <eg> with something more appropriate. I've used what I
understood to be the correct markup, but I didn't spend much time to
investigate. Your editing experience is certainly better than mine.
I'm sure nobody will object to formatting improvements!

Cheers,
Silvia.


2009/4/7 RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>:
> Dear Jack,
>
>> I think I've finished my chapter of the WD (chapter 7,
>> <http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#naming-fragment>).
>
>> There's still quite a few ednotes in there, and also I'd like someone to
>> review it for stuff that I've missed (or over-specified), etc.
>
> So this is my take on it ...
> <summary>Brilliant chapter, thanks!</summary>
>
> My only detailed comments are formatting:
> †- I have renamed the section heading and corrected some typos directly in
> the xml document, see the newest revision 1.27
> †- In the section 7.2, could we use something else than <eg> for the
> examples, e.g. <example>? For each section, could we write on the same line
> in a comment (// or /* ... */) the semantics of the fragment, e.g.
> †t=120, † † † †/* temporal fragment starting at t=120s and finishing at the
> end of the media */
> †- I do not understand your editorial note in the section 7.2.1?
> †- Could we put a reference to NPT and SMPTE in the document in 7.2.1 the
> first time they occur?
> †- In the section 7.2.3, should we add an editorial note referring to the
> ISSUE-4 in the tracker, raised by Silvia, regarding the pre-definition of
> track names?
> †- I really like the note you wrote at the end of the section 7.2.4
> regarding the possible confusion with xml:id. Could we put this note in a
> more visible format? Again, use what xmlspec offer, I think the range is
> broad.
> †- Section 7.3: do we have a suitable element in xmlspec that could repace
> the <pre>?
>
> †RaphaŽl
>
> --
> RaphaŽl Troncy
> CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
> Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands
> e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
> Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
> Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
> Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 13:36:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:32 GMT