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

Re: editorial [was: random comments on 2nd LC of WebArch]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:59:11 -0500
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1096304351.24259.402.camel@dirk>
Norm seems to have addressed these in a 3Sep edit of
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/

(specifically, 1.713 of
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/webarch.html)

and replied...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0051.html
(copied below)

Dom, I can't quite tell from the mail I've seen whether you're
satisfied. Are you?

On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 13:37, Dan Connolly wrote:
> the comment-tracking system I'm working on
> (http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004lc/lc-status-report.html) works
> better with this style of subject for sub-comments.
> 
> On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 10:55, Norman Walsh wrote:
> > / Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> was heard to say:
> > | 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.
> > 
> > Ditto.
> > 
> > | 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 outdated version of the RDF Recommendation; it should probably link to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
> > 
> > Fixed.
> > 
> > |> - it would be nice to add a class="glossary" to the <dl> of the glossary
> > |> section (see my previous comment on this [2])
> > 
> > Done.
> > 
> > |> - "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".
> > 
> > Done.
> > 
> > |> - 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.
> > 
> > None that I can think of. Fixed.
> > 
> > |> - using <code> around non-English prose would make better usage of HTML
> > |> semantics (e.g. a:element & co in 4.2.2)
> > 
> > Done.
> > 
> > |> - 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
> > 
> > s/A format specification/An XML format specification/
> > 
> > |> - 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.
> > 
> > I don't think that's relevant to the point that's being made and I
> > can't think of a better phrasing that wouldn't obscure the point.
> > But I'm open to suggestions.
> > 
> > |> - 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.
> > 
> > I replaced that phrase with "There are two problems associated with
> > the "text" media types"
> > 
> > |> - 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
> > 
> > I think that requires discussion, I'll raise it separately.
> > 
> >                                         Be seeing you,
> >                                           norm
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 27 September 2004 16:58:06 UTC

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