W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Review of Rembrance-Day webarch draft

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:33:03 -0500
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1070055182.10519.48.camel@seabright>
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 17:37, Tim Bray wrote:
> I've sorted these into P1, P2, and P3.  P3 is strictly editorial/typos

Hi Tim,

Thanks for comments. Below are my comments about which pieces I did not
address in the soon-to-appear 28 Nov draft.

 - Ian

> <P1>
> 
> Is IJ as "Editor" on the front page, the TAG membership at the end 
> under "Acknowledgements" the right way to do this?  I'd like to 
> acknowledge the members of www-tag and the IETF folks.

(We didn't discuss this at the ftf meeting.)

> 4.3 Extensibility
> 
> on "Must-understand", is "stops processing" the only response to an 
> error, shouldn't there be some reporting too?

(We didn't discuss this at the ftf meeting.)

> 4.5 The notion of "active" and "passive" is nowhere defined and is not 
> self-evident and should thus not be used.  Just give examples of 
> different behaviors, (a) browser sees <a href= (b) browser sees <img 
> src= (c) robot sees <a href= (d) reasoning system see <rdf:about href= 
> ... i.e. we don't need a taxonomy of types of link in here

We dropped active/passive. I did not add your suggested examples.

> <P2>

> 4.6.5 Namespace Documents
> 
> Story: s/use data optimized for agents automatically/machine-readable 
> data/

Others have opposed the phrase "machine-readable" and so we've
been using "optimized for processors. [No change for now.]
> </P2>
> 
> <P3>

> 3.3.2 Fragment Identifiers and...: s/representation 
> data/representations/

I didn't make this change.

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Friday, 28 November 2003 17:33:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:22 GMT