W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-editor@w3.org > February 2003

Comments for CR-xml-names11-20021218

From: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:58:02 -0800
Message-Id: <p05111b09ba70813c5e17@[192.168.123.158]>
To: xml-names-editor@w3.org

Hello,

These are minor editorial comments for your Namespaces in XML 1.1
Candidate Recommendation [1].

If you go to Rec: s/recommendation/Recommendation/
s/W3C membership/W3C Membership/
s/should have have names/should have names/
s/applies to to all element/applies to all element/
s/applies to to all unprefixed element/applies to all unprefixed element/
s/members of the World Wide Web Consortium XML Working
   Group/participants in the World Wide Web Consortium XML Working Group/
(to match the Process Document, see
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups.html#GroupsWG)


Re:
    "Note that all Internet domain names used in examples, with the
     exception of w3.org, are selected at random and should not be taken
     as having any import."

I am sorry but examples can only use example.com, example.net and
example.org. An explanation of what could happen to ecommerce.org and
frob.com is available privately on request. Please use IANA reserved
domain names per RFC 2606, and machine names if you need something
evocative (like ecommerce.example.org and frob.example.com).


RFC 2119 can be a reference. If you don't plan to use the RFC, then I
would explain why not. You could combine sections 7 and 8 with a
preface or 1.1 A Note on Notation and Usage could say something like:

Where <em class="RFC2119">EMPHASIZED</em>, the key words
<em title="MUST in RFC 2119 context" class="RFC2119">MUST</em>,
<em title="MUST NOT in RFC 2119 context" class="RFC2119">MUST NOT</em>,
<em title="REQUIRED in RFC 2119 context" class="RFC2119">REQUIRED</em>,
<em title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context" class="RFC2119">SHOULD</em>,
<em title="SHOULD NOT in RFC 2119 context" class="RFC2119">SHOULD NOT</em>,
<em title="MAY in RFC 2119 context" class="RFC2119">MAY</em>
in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[<cite><a href="#keywords">RFC2119</a></cite>].

I skipped the key words you don't use. Example CSS style for RFC
2119 to copy is here: http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#RFCs


     An example of a syntax that is designed with these goals in mind is
     that for Uniform Resource Names [RFC2141].

minor change:

     Uniform Resource Names [RFC2141] is an example of a syntax that is
     designed with these goals in mind.


This sentence is little confusing:

     All other tokens in the document which are required, for XML 1.1
     well-formedness, to match the XML production for Name, must match
     this specification's production for NCName.

I think it could read:

     All other tokens in the document which are required to match the
     XML production for Name for XML 1.1 well-formedness must match this
     specification's production for NCName.

or:

     For XML 1.1 well-formedness, all other tokens in the document which
     are required to match the XML production for Name must match this
     specification's production for NCName.

or maybe you can fix it.


PI could read "processing instruction (PI)" and link to a reference.


Re:
    "in this section we give a syntactic definition of IRIs"

Avoid we (see http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#ref-PRONOUNS). It could
say:

     this section gives a syntactic definition of IRIs

Re:
     We expect to issue an erratum replacing this section with a
     reference to the RFC when it is published.

could read:

     An erratum is expected to replace this section with a
     reference to the RFC when it is published.


Reference titles should be anchors linked to dated versions. URIs
shouldn't be links. There is an example to copy here:
http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#References


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xml-names11-20021218/

Best wishes for your project,
-- 
Susan Lesch           http://www.w3.org/People/Lesch/
mailto:lesch@w3.org               tel:+1.858.483.4819
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)    http://www.w3.org/
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:58:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:43 GMT