W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2006

[css3-namespace] Editorial

From: <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 05:56:15 -0000
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060905055641.8C2184F417@homer.w3.org>

This is a QA Review comment for "CSS Module: Namespaces"
2nd WD

About http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-css3-namespace-20060828/

There are details to fix here and there.

- Check consistency in the way the references are given
- Check for the clarity of each assertions
- Make it obvious when it's normative and when it's informative.
- Fix the references to specifications, last versions, different versions

# This specification, This document, etc. to start a sentence
	This specification defines the syntax for using namespaces in CSS.

Avoid using "this specification", but talk directly about the technology, it is always lighter for the reader. For example, 
	"CSS Module: Namespaces" defines the syntax for using 
	XML namespaces in CSS. …"

# References

	The terminology used in this specification is that of [XML-NAMES11].
Check references in the document and write proper English sentences. For example, the previous sentence could be written.
	"CSS Module: Namespaces" uses the terminology defined in "Namespaces in XML 1.1". [XML-NAMES11].

# explicitly marked as non-normative

It is said that "All of the text of this specification is normative except examples, notes, and sections explicitly marked as non-normative." Then the first example is noy declared as non-normative *explicitly*. Rephrase the sentence to make clear how the document is organized. For example "All text labeled Example is informative."

# typo?

"There is no default default namespace:" twice default?

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 5 September 2006 05:56:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:46 GMT