Re: Content Transformation Guidelines 1n (Rev 14)

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