W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > July 2007

Re: [access-control] editorial comments

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:04:01 +0200
To: "Matt Womer" <mdw@w3.org>
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.twbvszcj64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:12:26 +0200, Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org> wrote:
>> I think the fallback to emphazing (which is also used when RFC 2119 is  
>> reference) is good enough.
> Yeah, but the idea is that for someone reading with a text browser or a  
> screen reader, etc, it would still be emphasized, thus:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-access-control-20070618/,text
> would show 'MUST' where appropriate (but still have lower case)

You mean it would be lowercase in rendering? If so, yes, I understand  
that. As for the html2txt conversion above I'm not convinced that gives an  
accurate view of what text browsers or screen readers would do with the  
document. If they do, and thus not support the <em> element, I would be  

> Something along the lines of:
> "It is expected that this document will progress along the  
> Recommendation process."
> perhaps?

I integrated such a sentence now.

>>> I'm not sure why the Conformance section is within the Introduction,  
>>> or why Terminology is within Conformance?  Is the introduction  
>>> informative or normative?
>> Everything sentence with an RFC2119 term in it (properly marked up) is  
>> normative.
> What about the first question above about why Conformance is within the  
> Introduction and Terminology within Conformance?

I simply followed precedent of some other specifications (XBL2 iirc) and  
didn't really have a better place to put them. Making them top-level  
sections seems a bit weird.

>>> 1.1.1:
>>> The terminology section might be expanded to add conventions on the  
>>> use of color as well as adding some more of the terms used within.
>> I'm not sure what this means.
> I would like to see the stuff you said about the meanings of the color  
> in the rest of this message (that is the bits that are colored that you  
> expect to survive the entire process) have the meaning defined in the  
> terminology section. e.g.:
> "Portions of sample code may appear yellow in order to highlight the..."

I can't do that. That is only the case for a subset of (arguably a very  
large subset) users.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 12:04:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:56:19 UTC