W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > July to September 2004

Comments on sections 19 and 20

From: DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:45:02 -0400
Message-ID: <FEF4858E8AB32D4EAC2CF2A7D85386EB0B254048@lnxdayexch06b.lexis-nexis.com>
To: "'www-html-editor@w3.org'" <www-html-editor@w3.org>
I skipped right ahead to linking issues, and have read sections 13, 19, and
20 so far. There's a lot of things that will be very valuable. Here are some
things I thought I should point out:
In 19.2:
The basic idea here is great (it addresses an issue that the Idealliance
PRISM group has struggled with), but the writeup could be clearer. 
- The topic covered is much more focused than the title of "Properties"
leads one to believe. A better title would be "Content as Metadata" or
"Metadata as Content." 
- The word "presentational" in the first sentence strikes me as a bad word
choice. Most people think of "presentational" as identifying information
often stored in stylesheets, such as font choice, color, margin size, etc. I
think the distinction between content and metadata is completely separate
from whether something is presentational.
20.4, two things:
The first example uses a con: prefix in an attribute value without declaring
a namespace URL to go with this prefix. The text below it describe how this
is "from the SWAP contacts taxonomy", but even after a google search on
"swap contacts" I have no idea what this is. (The seventh hit is for a page
with the filename wife-swap-stories.shtml, which is probably more
entertaining than the taxonomy in question.) Considering that the example
shows a complete document and that the Dublin Core namespace is properly
declared, shouldn't this con: prefix one be as well, to really put the "X"
in "XHTML"?
"the content of meta is an XML literal" I could not find a definition for
"XML literal" and I couldn't find a mention of it anywhere else in the
XHTML2 WD. It's important enough, and open to enough different
interpretations, that it needs to be defined if it's going to be used, or a
pointer to a definition needs to be added.
Section 20.6 uses the phrase "meta data" four times, while the rest of the
file uses the term "metadata" consistently. Since "meta" isn't in any of the
many dictionaries I've checked for it, the use in 20.6 should be made
consistent with the use in the rest of the file.
Overall, the WD is looking great. 
Bob DuCharme   www.snee.com/bob <http://www.snee.com/bob>        <bob@  
snee.com> weblog on linking-related topics: 
Received on Friday, 27 August 2004 19:45:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:08:53 UTC