W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > November 2011

RE: Working through my f2f action items

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:32:30 -0500
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA041EB547@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, 2011 November 28 8:36
> To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Working through my f2f action items
> 

> New draft [6], including diff-marked version [7], now available.


> [6] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
> [7] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/diff.html

Generally looks like a big improvement.  Just a few nits:

----

Last para of intro has two very similar sentences about
"establish[ing] a lower bound on the number and nature 
of features supported".  I'm guessing you meant to delete
one of them.  (And then maybe "Establishing" -> "Defining"
in the last sentence to reduce repetition and to use the 
same word as in the second para of section 1.1.)

----

I'd like to suggest swapping the order of sections 2 and 3
so that, when the reader starts reading about the profiles
themselves, they don't encounter "Core, Signal, Decl and 
ImplDef" without any idea what they are.

Short of swapping the entire sections, we could add to
the intro part of section 2 a sentence with just enough
info that the reader realizes that "Core, Signal, Decl 
and ImplDef" will be explained in detail in section 3.

----

In 4.2.2, I still find sentences starting with "Entirely"
to be less-than entirely obvious.  As a first time reader,
I'd be saying "Entirely what?"  Why can't we say:

 The set of these information items made available may differ
 entirely in that, where....

That may be a bit wordy, but it's not like we need to save
a few bytes here.

----

Regardless of the decision for my previous comment:  especially
when viewed in a sanserif font, the reference to "the EII case"
is less than obvious.  I suggest at least that the first time
we use the term, we say "the Element Information Items (EII)
case" so that the reader has a chance to realize what we mean.

----

paul
Received on Monday, 28 November 2011 21:33:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 November 2011 21:33:05 GMT