- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:43:08 +0200
- To: Sean Patterson <SPatterson@Novarra.com>
- CC: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Adding some more minor comments to Sean's. Section 1.1: "The W3C MWI BPWG". The accronym hasn't been introduced before. I can make sure it appears in the "Status of This Document" section next to the group's name while fine tuning that part for the publication Section 1.4: The term "User Agent" does not appear in the diagram. It could replace or complement "Device" so that the connection between the diagram and the requirements appears more clearly. [may wait until after publication as Last Call] Section 3.1: "by use of the terms "origin server" and "Web site"". All statements in 4.2 actually use "Server", not "origin server". Add "server" to the list? Section D.2: "a more general and flexible mechanism than use of the HTML link element" Missing a "the" before "use"? Well, maybe not. Anyway. Sean Patterson wrote: > My comments on draft 1n (all minor changes): > > Section 2.1: > There is a double period after the first sentence in the third > paragraph. > > Section 4.1.1: > (Really nit-picky) In the second sentence of the second paragraph, the > period should be outside the parentheses, not inside. > > Section 4.1.4: > In the second sentence of the second paragraph, there is the text > "...serve stale data but when doing do should notify the user...". The > word "do" should be "so". > > Section 4.1.5.4: > In the first paragraph of the second paragraph, there is no space > between the words "may" and "request". > > Section 4.2.3.2: > In the second paragraph, the text "...media types of this representation > by setting the media attribute and set the href attribute to a valid..." > sounds better, I think, if "set the href" is change to "setting the > href". > > Same comment applies to the third paragraph of this section (change "set > the href" to "setting the "href"). > > In the first note, the word "the" before "link" should be removed (I > think). Actually, I found the text for this note in version 1l to be > easier to understand. I think a reference to the text "above" makes it > easier to understand which link elements we are talking about. > > In general, however, this section is clearer now than in version 1l. > > Section 4.3.4: > This section recommends requesting a resource again if it receives a > Vary header referring to one of the altered headers. However it doesn't > say explicitly that the re-request should use unaltered headers (it is > implied). To be completely clear, I'd add "with unaltered headers" > after the text "it should request the resource again". > > Section: 4.3.6: > In the third bullet, the DOCTYPE examples just seem to appear in the > text with no introduction. Maybe adding "(such as the DOCTYPE)" after > "...the device or class of device" would make it flow better. > > Section 4.3.6.2: > In the first sentence of the first paragraph, shouldn't "the proxies" be > "a proxy"? In the same sentence, changing "content linked resources" to > "content of linked resources" makes the sentence more readable. > > Note B.1: > In the section for a 406 response, I believe there should be an "else" > or "otherwise" before "Re-request with altered headers". > > > > Sean > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org] >> On Behalf Of Jo Rabin >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 6:27 AM >> To: public-bpwg-ct >> Subject: Content Transformation Guidelines 1n (Rev 14) >> >> >> Hello CT Fans >> >> I've produced a penultimate editors copy of the LCWD [1] which now >> includes: >> >> a) Examples, based on contributions by Sean and Rob and modified per >> comments from Bryan (especially mention of Cache-Control: private) >> >> b) A conformance Statement, which is a Variation on a Theme by Daoust >> >> c) An updated Acknowledgement List (please indicate anybody who you >> think is missing) >> >> d) Miscellaneous Editorial "Improvements" including a "human readable" >> fragment id for all the sections that might be externally referenced. >> >> e) Re-insertion of text about indication of transformation having been >> applied and ability to retrieve unaltered response per the old 3.1 >> >> Diffs to previous versions under: "Previous versions" in the document. >> >> Please give close attention to this draft. It is the one I would like > us >> to resolve on next Tuesday and for the BP as a whole to request >> transition to LCWD on Thursday next week. >> >> Thanks >> Jo >> >> [1] >> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors- >> drafts/Guidelines/080724 >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 07:43:04 UTC