Re: Content Transformation Guidelines 1n (Rev 14)

Thanks Sean, that is very helpful. I'd spotted some of these, but by no 
means all.

Also I think that there are a couple of very densely worded sections 
that could do with some "treatment" but also think that this can wait 
till after last call and review of any other points that come in.

Thanks again for picking up on these things.

Jo

On 28/07/2008 22:49, 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 08:14:57 UTC