Re: Content Transformation Guidelines 1n (Rev 14)

Likewise, thanks for these comments ... and to add a couple of my own:

The Scope section of the Introduction should be normative?

The Note in Appendix B should follow the top level header, not B.1

The Note in 4.1.5 should follow the sentence "These circumstances are 
detailed ..."

Jo

On 29/07/2008 08:43, Francois Daoust wrote:
> 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 08:25:02 UTC