Re: Content Transformation Guidelines 1n (Rev 14)

On that particular point, after a tiny bit of research, it doesn't seem 
that the Scope section needs to be defined as Normative.

That being said, as Sean points out, there may be stuff in the first 
paragraph that we might want to move or copy to the Conformance section 
to precise the classes of products. I think that's one of these minor 
changes that may wait until after publication as Last Call though.

Francois.

Sean Patterson wrote:
> I'm not an expert on this normative vs. non-normative stuff
> yet--however, it looks to me that the first paragraph of the Scope
> section is normative and the second paragraph is informative.  Maybe we
> don't need to be that precise.
> 
> Also, can you have a normative subsection inside an informative section?
> Would we need to move subsection 1.3 to section 2 or something?  Just
> asking since I don't know the answer.
> 
> Sean
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:24 AM
>> To: Francois Daoust
>> Cc: Sean Patterson; public-bpwg-ct
>> Subject: 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 15:31:03 UTC