W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > January 2006

RE: Initial Draft of Requirements/Use Case Document [Editorial]

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:19:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020204034C@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "Alex Milowski" <alex@milowski.org>, <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

All editorial issues in this email.

The HTML includes:

<p>
<a href="...">(source: Rui Lopes)</a>
<ol class="enumar">
<li><p>Read a non-XML document.</p></li>
<li><p>Transform.</p></li>
</ol>
</p>

which is invalid HTML and will not be acceptable for
publication.  I think you have to avoid this in the
XML by closing the surrounding p before starting
the olist.

---

Minor point on process:

If we are superseding
http://www.w3.org/TR/proc-model-req/
why don't we keep that short name (proc-model-req) instead 
of switching to xproc-requirements?

And if we are going to switch, it's customary to use "req"
instead of "requirements" in the short name.  (But I think
we should just reuse the existing name/undated URI.)
 
---

Another minor editorial point:

Where you have "(source: xml core wg)", there are two
things wrong with the link.  First, the standard style
when linking to a published document is not to link 
directly out, but to link to an entry in the References 
section*.  (Yes, you do need to add a References section.)
Second, when you do add the reference to the XML Core note,
you should use the dated URL, especially if we agree this 
new document will end up superseding the XML Core version.

paul

* Linking to an archived email can be an exception
and can go directly rather than have each email
included in the References section.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of Alex Milowski
> Sent: Tuesday, 2006 January 17 17:15
> To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Initial Draft of Requirements/Use Case Document
> 
> Whew!
> 
> I've finished putting all the requirements and use cases into one
> document.  I have not made the association between requirements
> and their supporting use cases.
> 
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2006 15:23:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:46 GMT