W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > May 2000

Re: minor comments for WD-MathML2-20000328

From: Robert Miner <rminer@geomtech.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 21:25:52 -0500
Message-Id: <200006010225.VAA11527@wisdom.geomtech.com>
To: lesch@w3.org
CC: www-math@w3.org


Hi Susan,

Thanks for the superlative proofreading.  

I'm in charges of corrections for chapter 7, and I think in all cases
except one I have taken your suggestions verbatim, and in the
remaining case, I took the spirit, but reworded the sentence
differently to make a slightly different point.

I had one question over what you intended by way of cleaning up
awkward citations in the first paragraph of chapter 7.  In the end, I
just removed the redundant text references to HTML, etc in cases there
there was a link with the same text immediately following.  If you had
something else in mind, let me know.

The itemized changes follow:

> In chapter 7, the links to the test suite were "not found." When you 
> get them connected, you may wish to keep this advice in mind: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2000JanMar/0103.html.
> It says use descriptive text for the link, and keep the text of 
> the URI in the source.

Done.

> Apparently the use of "we" is frowned on in specifications. This 
> report offers ways to avoid it. I couldn't find a proper reference 
> for you, but one reason is offered in the final paragraph of 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2000JanMa 
> r/0079.html which explains that first person English is difficult to 
> translate.

Done.

> In chapter 7, you could consider making the test suite a numbered 
> section (for example, maybe 7.2.1.1 and move Deprecated to 7.2.1.2).

Done.

> 7. par. 1 and 7.1 par. 2
> [HTML4.0]
> [HTML4] [or 4.01]

What is the point here? 


> 7. par. 5
> working group
> Working Group

Done.

> 7.1 par. 3
> "...While some popular user agents also support inclusion of
>      MathML directly in HTML 4 as "XML data islands," the view
>      point we adopt here is that this is a transitional
>      strategy, and we don't elaborate on it."
> [No "we". Maybe:]
>      While some popular user agents also support inclusion of
>      MathML directly in HTML 4 as "XML data islands," this is
>      a transitional strategy.

Done.

> 7.1.1 par. 8
> math' element
> math element [or `math' element]

Done

> to element
> to an element

Done.

> 7.1.1.2 par. 1
> recommendations
> Recommendations

Done.

> 7.1.1.2 par. 2
> "...After surveying a number of user agents and other
>      MathML-aware software applications, we offer the
>      following suggestions."
> [Omit "we"; I think you can skip the sentence.]

I agree.  It's gone...

> 7.1.2 - mode
> standard CSS2 `display' property
> [CSS2 is not a standard, far as I know. You could just say:]
> CSS2 `display' property

Done.

> 7.1.3 par. 7
> consult the W3C Metadata Activity
> [needs a link to http://www.w3.org/Metadata/]

Done.

> 7.1.4 par. 1
> they are problems for XML applications in XHTML
> [Not sure here, but I think you mean:]
> they are problems for XML applications and XHTML

I just took the sentence out, since it didn't add much.

> 7.2.1 par. 7
> makes is possible
> makes it possible

Done.

> 7.2.1.1 par. 1 We now clarify the relation between deprecated
> features and MathML 2.0 compliance.  To clarify the relation between
> deprecated features and MathML 2.0 compliance:

I thought it needed to explicitly state that 'deprecation' was being
defined, so I changed it to:

  The following points define what it means for a
  feature to be deprecated, and clarify the relation between
  deprecated features and MathML 2.0 compliance.

> 7.2.3 par. 3
> mean time
> meantime

Done.

> 7.2.3 par. 6
> loop-hole
> loophole

Done

> "...We trust both authors and applications will use
>      non-standard attributes judiciously."
> [As nice as this sounds, to remove the "we" it could say, for example:]
>      Authors and applications should use
>      non-standard attributes judiciously.

Done. Sigh.

> 7.3 par. 2
> working group
> Working Group

Done.

> 7.3.1. par. 2
> Macros has
> Macros have

Done.
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2000 22:25:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:49 GMT