W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > February 2008

RE: Content-in-RDF stable draft

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:27:25 +0100
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281902F9B55D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Carlos A Velasco" <carlos.velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>


Hi Carlos,
 
> Carlos A Velasco wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Here comes an updated draft with the correct title and some minor
> > editorial changes for discussion today.

A few comments:

- There's no possibility of specifying the encoding of the TextContent. On the other hand if we provide encoding properties for both (XMLContent already has its own) we will be suffering the same double-enconding problems we had discussed before.

- Some times the same vocabulary as in the XML specification is used (e.g. xmlDecl, docTypeDecl...), but other the "official" names are not used. (e.g. xmlVersion instead of xmlVersionNum or xmlEncoding instead of xmlEncName)

May we need to be consistent on this for the sake of clarity?

- We have XMLContent and TextContent, so it is supposed that for html (not xhtml) we may use TextContet. Although is true that html is usually treated as plain text, do you think we may include a SGMLContent? (even just as a plain empty container)

side-note: I'm not sure myself about this, just thinking aloud.

Editorial staff:

- May the XMLContent class be a subclass of TextContent? In fact it is a class of text content, isn't it?

- The "Extensions" section reads "Classes to specify the Document Object Model (DOM) of XML documents". DOM core is applicable to XML, HTML or even CSS documents [1], as they are very important formats for our uses cases I think we should reword this phrase to include them.

- The xmlRest definition reads: "Property representing as an XML Literal the part of the XML following the document type declaration if there is a document type declaration, or the part following the XML declaration if there is no document type declaration."


- The definition of xmlLeadingMisc looks too much straightforward, even taking into consideration that XML knowledge is required. Reference to the allowed components (comments or PI) may be better.

- "Abstract" and "Introduction" are basically the same. Maybe not a problem itself but looks strange.

[1] - [http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-DOM-Requirements-20040226/#general-requirements]

Regards,
 CI.

____________________________

Carlos Iglesias

Fundación CTIC
Parque Científico-Tecnológico de Gijón
33203 - Gijón, Asturias, España

teléfono: +34 984291212
fax: +34 984390612
email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org
URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:27:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:27:05 GMT