[web-annotation] Minor pre-publication issues (2016-03-19)

iherman has just created a new issue for 

== Minor pre-publication issues (2016-03-19) ==
I have scanned through the three document purely from an editorial 
point of view. I have some comments below on things that should be 
done before publication. None of these are technical, ie, they bear no
 influence on the CFC. 

Here they are:

- [ ] We should add, for Benjamin, "Invited Expert" as an affiliation,
 instead of leaving it empty.

- [ ]  I am surprised that almost all the references are listed as 
"informative". I do not think that is correct. I would think that all 
references to a standard, made from a normative section, should be, as
 a rule, normative. There might be some cases when this is not true, 
but I guess it is a good rule of thumbs. (In `respec`, this means that
 you have to use `[[!REF]]`, instead of `[[REF]]`)

- [ ]  For accessibility reasons, we should be careful how we treat 
figures. The 'alt' tag must be meaningful (Saying "Basic Annotation 
Model" may not say much I guess). I know this is difficult. We can 
also add a `@longdesc` and point to a fragment within the text that is
 shown in the figure. That may work well for the diagrams in the 
vocabulary, simply pointing at the corresponding turtle example.

- [ ]  It is probably a good idea to add a reference to issue #165 in 
the conformance clause of the model document, making it clear that we 
are working on something here...

- [ ]  Maybe worth adding a note in the section on diagrams in vocab, 
making it clear that more are coming in later releases...

- [ ]  I wonder whether it is not worth, in the status section of the 
model document, to explicitly call out the 'feature at risk', namely 
the date format. Formally speaking this is to be done in the CR phase 
only, but putting it there already now does not harm.

- [ ]  In the vocab, the new example using exif (example 98): please 
add a reference to exif (isn't it EXIF, b.t.w.?), and it may be worth 
emphasizing that the width and height values are the ones coming from 

- [ ]  in the protocol spec, there is no conformance section. At the 
minimum, it should contain the standard text on MUST, MAY, etc, that 
you are used in the other two documents

- [ ]  I get a bunch of horizontal scroll bars in the protocol spec, 
due to the new TR style. I wonder whether it is possible to slightly 
reformat the examples to avoid those...

- [ ]  The Acknowledgement section of the protocol spec should be 
updated to include the same text as the other two documents...

- [ ]  I have received comments before if a document contained no 
'changes since the last version' section. I realize it would be 
extremely complicated to do that for the model document, although, 
maybe, a set of high level description of the changes would be good. 
But for the future versions, however, we should be prepared to include
 a more detailed changes' section, too.

Cc: @azaroth42 @BigBlueHat @paolociccarese 

Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/186 using your GitHub 

Received on Saturday, 19 March 2016 11:56:33 UTC