RE: updated draft for discussion

Dear all,

Just for the record, I have submitted a batch of comments as Github issues, below are the links to them (do not expect any further issues from my side in the next days).

Major issues:
- Feature boxes throughout section 2 #73: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/73 
- 2.1.1. Content Formats: Stylesheets and scripts as separate sub-items of markup resources #74: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/74 
- 2.1.2 Content Negotiation #77: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/77

Minor or mild issues:
- Document acronym (ETF) #70: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/70
- Introduction: example referring to CMS #71: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/71
- List of Features (introduction) #72: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/72
- 2.1.1. Content Formats: Rich Internet Applications #75: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/75
- 2.1.1 Content formats (minor and mild comments) #76: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/76
- 2.1.2.1 Cookies (definition) #78: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/78
- 2.1.2.1 Cookies: note on other storage mechanisms #79: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/79

Editorial issues (Samuel) #69 (up to section 2.1.2.2): https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/69 

Regards,

Samuel.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 18 de febrero de 2015 15:08
Para: ERT WG
Asunto: updated draft for discussion

Dear group,

After long delays, there is finally a new document for discussion:

# Reference document with agreed changes:
  - https://w3c.github.io/w3c-waet/WAET.html

# Suggested update for discussion:
  - http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-WAET20141215

Note that the suggested update includes significant rewrites for most sections, which may have introduced unintended technical inaccuracies. 
This needs to be reviewed and discussed where issues are identified.

Some of the key objectives for this suggested update was to:
  - Provide summaries for each feature, to give people an overview the first time they read the document, and to serve as a quick reference when people look back at the document (eg. to re-lookup a feature).
  - Tighten up the wording and describe each feature more clearly. For example, compare section  "2.1.5 Static code evaluation vs. rendered DOM evaluation" with the updated "2.1.5 Content Rendering".
  - Tried to give the headings shorter yet more meaningful titles; an attempt to organize the sections in a less arbitrary way; and lots of grammar and editorial improvements throughout.


Again, this is just a suggestion for discussion. Please compare these two versions and provide your thoughts and comments.

Regards,
   Shadi

--
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)


---
Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast! Antivirus está activa.
http://www.avast.com

Received on Monday, 23 February 2015 14:50:41 UTC