RE: Editorial comments on landscape document

Dom

Thanks for these points.

Wrt "The guidelines should address how ..." as a matter of fact this is
how I originally wrote them but it seemed tedious in the extreme to read
this prose on each statement. In the end I thought the difference boiled
down to the difference between saying:

Consumers must be able to find out what's in the jam

and

Jam Jars must state information that allows users to find out what's in
the Jam.

But then it's not the Jam Jar that says it, so:

The labels on Jam Jars must state information that allows users to find
out what's in the Jam.

Or worse

The writing on the labels on Jam Jars must ...

Etc.

If we are basically talking about food labelling, then the first seems
perfectly adequate. In this context we are talking about requirements of
the Guidelines.

But that said, I have no especially strong feeling, and if it makes it
clearer ...

Jo

---
Jo Rabin
mTLD (http://dotmobi.mobi)

mTLD Top Level Domain Limited is a private limited company incorporated
and registered in the Republic of Ireland with registered number 398040
and registered office at Arthur Cox Building, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin
2.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Dominique Hazael-Massieux
> Sent: 30 October 2007 09:50
> To: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
> Subject: Editorial comments on landscape document
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> A few comments on the Landscape document:
> * I would drop the "1.0" from the title; it's unlikely the document
will
> need to be versioned down to that level - most likely, once it gets
> approved as final, it won't be revised, and if it is, it can be
revised
> under the same title
> 
> * the presentation of the requirements between 10 and 11 (linking back
> to req 6) is a bit confusing; I would simply put a sentence saying
that
> the said aspect is covered by req 6
> 
> * there should probably be ref to the TAG finding:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html
> 
> * all the requirements are of the "must" form (although it's not clear
> whether that's meant in the RFC2119 sense); I'm not sure imposing so
> many must can leave any space for a real-world solution :)
> 
> * the requirements all apply to servers/proxies/browsers/etc, while I
> think what is meant is requirements on what the guidelines document
> would address; e.g. I would rephrase:
> 
> "Origin servers must be able to selectively enable or disable features
> of transforming proxies." in
> "The guidelines should address how origin servers can enable or
disable
> features of transforming proxies"
> 
> HTH,
> 
> Dom
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 15:20:34 UTC