W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: random comments on 2nd LC of WebArch (editorial)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:36:12 -0500
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1093037772.24652.236.camel@dirk>

On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 08:46, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
> A few  points I noted while skimming through 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040816/
> I hope I'll be able to make a more thorough review, possibly through the
> QA WG.

Thanks for the quick review.

It helps if you try to make just one main point in each message
to public-webarch-comments.

I see 3 main points here; the first is a collection of
editorial suggestions...

> Editorial
> - section 4.5.3 and 4.6 refers to [RDF10] which itself resolves to an
> outdated version of the RDF Recommendation; it should probably link to
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/ instead
> (found through the TR ref checker [1] )
> 1.
> http://www.w3.org/2000/06/webdata/xslt?xslfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2004%2F07%2Freferences-checker&xmlfile=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.w3.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Ftidy-if%3FdocAddr%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2004%2FWD-webarch-20040816%2F&
> - it would be nice to add a class="glossary" to the <dl> of the glossary
> section (see my previous comment on this [2])
> 2.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0007..html
> - "A textual data format is one in which the data is specified as a
> sequence of characters" ; I suggest mentioning somewhere something about
> the encoding (ie, a big5-encoded text for a us-ascii processor may well
> be considered as binary). e.g. "a textual data format in one in which
> the data is specified in a defined encoding as a sequence of
> characters".
> - in 4.1 "thirty-two bit little-endian two's-complement and sixty-four
> bit IEEE double-precision floating-point"; any reason not to use numbers
> instead of "thirty-two", "two" and "sixty-four"? That impacts
> readability.
> - using <code> around non-English prose would make better usage of HTML
> semantics (e.g. a:element & co in 4.2.2)
> - in 4.2.2, "A format specification SHOULD include information about
> change policies for XML namespaces." is XML-format specific, which
> suggests that the subject of the good practice "format specification"
> should be qualified in consequence
> - regarding 4.2.4 "composition of data formats", "These relationships
> can be mixed and nested arbitrarily" depends on the composition
> mechanism defined in the data format; I don't think this apply to any
> data format - I don't have an example handy, but I'm fairly sure there
> are some types of XML you couldn't embed in a binary format for example.
> - 4.5.7 has "These Internet media types create two problems" ; I think
> "these media types" is too generic, since only the "text/*" are
> concerned by the issued mentioned below that.
> - since the document acknowledges itself that it will have other
> editions (or are they versions?), it may benefit from using a numbered
> shortname (ie webarch10 instead of webarch), and follows pubrules with
> regard to forward linking to newer versions

And I'll reply separately about each of the others...

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 20 August 2004 21:36:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:47 UTC