W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2004

LC comments

From: Mario Jeckle <mario@jeckle.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 07:38:08 +0200
Message-ID: <408CA040.1060106@jeckle.de>
To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Please find my personal comments to the LC WebArch doc.
All are concentrated on section 4 solely.

The order of the techniques mentioned in brackets in the first sentence
of section 4 should be changed to "XHTML, RDF/XML, XMIL, XLink, CSS, and
PNG" to be consistent with the following section.

After the first paragraph of section 4 insertion of an additional
comment recommending the re-use of at least the meta-format (such as
XML) is helpful even if a concrete instance format (e.g, myFunnyML) is
not possible or intended.

The sentence "textual formats also have the considerable advantage that
they can be directly read and understood by human beings" should be
formulated more restrictive. Proposed addition: "? can be understood if
sufficient knowledge about the underlying semantics is present or
available".

Proposed addition the good practice "Link mechanisms": "Re-use existing
hyperlink mechanisms, instead of inventing new ones".

In section 4.5.2 it reads "XLink is an appropriate specification for
representing links in hypertext XML applications" (which is absolutely
true form my point of view). But, doesn't this possibly conflict with
the HLink stuff done by the (X)HTML WG?

Section 4.5.3 sketches the "p" element as an example of a XML element
which is "defined in two or more XML formats". Who did we not refer to
the "set" element which is already present in both MathML and SVG? This
would make the statement more precise and also give a useful example.

Below the good practice "Namespace adoption" there is the term "fully
qualified" introduced. Why isn't "qualified" sufficient here also?

In section 4.5.4 there is a bullet-point list collecting reasons for
provide information about a namespace. Should we add "wish to retrieve
the namespace policy" here?

Section 4.5.5 is named "QNames in XML". But, unfortunately the document
does not synonymies the expansion "qualified name" with the acronym.

Sect. 4.5.6: It could be helpful to expand "ID" to "unique
identification" the first time it is being used.

Sect. 4.5.6 a type named "xs:ID" is used there. Should this not read "ID
within the namespace assigned to XML Schema" here?

Best,
Mario
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAjKA946tt20EwGqwRAmx3AJwIGo5kYYk+D0krADCTJNTSCdGU/wCfUBaQ
l3V0JXVi06lbl93JYlo5Bqs=
=VjyE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 26 April 2004 01:38:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:25 GMT