W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > October to December 1999

possible minor typos in WD-xhtml1-19991124

From: Susan Lesch <susan@textet.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:04:51 -0700
Message-Id: <l03110701b46db54d0c7f@[]>
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
What follows is a minor typo report for the new XHTML working draft [1]
based on one reading. I cannot claim to be an expert, and am only an
interested reader. I found the draft to be well written with almost no

General Comments

Case:  "upper-case", "lower-case", and "lower case" could read "uppercase"
and "lowercase". They are dictionary words.

Capitalization:  "Strictly Conforming XHTML Documents", "Document", and
"User Agent" sometimes are capitalized, and sometimes not. I'd say go one
way or the other.

Contractions:  "hasn't", "don't", and "doesn't" could be expanded to "has
not", "do not", and "does not".

Style PI:  "C.1 Processing Instructions" and "Appendix E. References" could
mention the PI for associating stylesheets [2], and "C.13 Cascading Style
Sheets (CSS) and XHTML" could link to that Recommendation. Also, if best
practice has been decided, it might be helpful if you explained where the
style PI belongs -- maybe a tight little prose version of XML's "prolog ::=
XMLDecl? Misc* (doctypedecl Misc*)?".

Line Items

Line numbers refer to the XHTML source. A quote is followed by my attempt
at a correction. Comments are in brackets [].

line 70

line 144
to cite W3C Working Draft
to cite W3C Working Drafts

line 290

line 299
for use by non-document specialists.
for use by non-document-specialists.
[I think.]

line 356
best effort content transformation.
best-effort content transformation.
{I think.]

line 376
to define [and document]
[Not sure about those brackets. Would parentheses or no punctuation work?]

line 393
"shall" has the same definition as "must".
[Could Shall be a definition term, and refer to Must?]

line 397
A value or behavior
[could mean:]
A "reserved" value or behavior
[Reserved doesn't appear anywhere in this specification; does it need

line 587
[This was reported already.]

line 649
make HTML the default namespace
make XHTML the default namespace

line 714
different system's
different systems'

lines 738-739, and line 748
white space

lines 820-821
[Sorry, I don't understand the part of this sentence after the semicolon.
Could it be clearer?]
"...In SGML-based HTML 4.0 certain elements were permitted to omit
    the end tag; with the elements that followed implying closure."

lines 910 and 916
script and style
[could be:]
<code>script</code> and <code>style</code>

line 977
Note that in XHTML 1.0,
In XHTML 1.0,

line 1011
6.1 Modularizing HTML
6.1 Modularizing XHTML

lines 1025-1046
["6.2 Subsets and Extensibility" could be part of "6.1 Modularizing HTML";
(such a change would mean renumbering the TOC).]

line 1065
or mathematicians this
or mathematicians, this

line 1194
Note that XML parsers
XML parsers

line 1257
Note this problem doesn't effect user agents
This problem does not affect user agents

line 1325 and 1327
[could be:]

line 1327

line 1336
name space

line 1337
[could be:]


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-xhtml1-19991124/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-stylesheet/

Thank you for your time and best wishes,
Susan Lesch
Received on Friday, 3 December 1999 14:04:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:08:21 UTC