Re: ACTION-108: RDFa Lite 1.1 Comments

I am fine with these changes.  And I don't want to change respec.js at 
this point.

On 1/21/2012 2:28 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 01/17/2012 10:11 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>> Disclaimer: I am an "Oxford Comma Nazi".
>
> I seem to be surrounded by you people. :)
>
>> Section 1:
>>
>> It says "The goal was..." I think it should be "The goal is...".
>> Active voice. Present tense.
>
> Fixed.
>
>> Section 2.1 - the title should be "vocab, typeof, and property"
>
> Fixed.
>
>> paragraph 2 - "As you will note above, we have specified..." is
>> awkward. How about "In this example we have specified..."
>
> Fixed.
>
>> Section 2.2
>>
>> It says "Uniform Resource Locator (URL)" Do we still say URL? I
>> thought it was URI? or IRI?
>
> Beginning web authors are going to be reading this document, and rather
> than confuse them with the URI/IRI/URL distinction, I used what I think
> is the most colloquial form of saying "identifier" among Web authors -
> "URL". I checked the document for consistency and believe we use "URL"
> everywhere.
>
>> Section 2.3
>>
>> says "such as|dc|,|foaf|and|schema|." It should be "such
>> as|dc|,|foaf,|and|schema|."
>
> Fixed.
>
>> Section 3:
>>
>> This sentence "As well as sections marked as non-normative, all
>> authoring guidelines, diagrams, examples, and notes in this
>> specification are non-normative. Everything else in this
>> specification is normative." is awkward.
>
> That is the boilerplate ReSpec text for the conformance section.
>
>> How about "All authoring guidelines, diagrams, examples, and notes
>> in this specification are non-normative. Sections marked specifically
>> as 'non-nomative' are also non-normative. Everything else in this
>> specification is normative."
>
> If we are going to change this, I suggest we change it in ReSpec. I
> think the wording is fine, but will trip up Editors who forget to mark
> all of their non-normative sections with class="informative".
>
> Thoughts?
>
>> Section 3.1:
>>
>> It says "In order for a document to be labeled as a conforming*RDFa
>> Lite 1.1 document*, it/must/provide the facilities described as
>> mandatory in its Host Language and it/must not/use any additional
>> RDFa attributes other than those described in this specification"
>> This isn't quite right. I think we mean "In order for a document to
>> be labeled as a conforming*RDFa Lite 1.1 document*, it/must/only
>> require the facilities described as mandatory in its Host Language
>> and it/must not/use any additional RDFa attributes other than those
>> described in this specification"
>
> Fixed.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to review this document, Shane (and
> Ivan!). Please let us know if these changes have satisfied your concerns
> by Wednesday, February 1st 2012 (the day before we decide to enter the
> Last Call period).
>
> -- manu
>

-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120

Received on Sunday, 22 January 2012 17:25:54 UTC