W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > September 2009

Re: Reaching a final version of Addendum to BPWG

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:04:07 +0100
Message-ID: <4AAFACE7.6060707@mtld.mobi>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
CC: "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, Public MWBP <public-bpwg@w3.org>
I have only a couple of very minor observations.

1) the punctuation used to end bullets and numbered lists is not 
consistent (the predominant style seems to be to end with a ".")

2) Under "Evaluation" the formula "Verify that" is used pretty 
consistently up to about 3.8. After that it seems to be mainly "Check 
if". This is not really a problem, because the interpretation is usually 
"check that the following is true", like "verify that". However in a 
couple of cases this is not the case, e.g. 3.23:

Submit the form without selecting any item. This will ensure that 
defaults, such as preselected values, will be used:

Check if the response is an error page.
Check if the response is a page asking the user to fix some data.
Check if the response, incorrectly, is the original page.
If there are text or textarea elements that include a default value 
telling the user what to enter, check that these values do not have to 
be manually deleted in order for them not to be processed as user input.

to the pedantically minded, this leaves room for doubt, as "Check if the 
response is an error page" if read in the same light as other similarly 
worded injunctions, could be assumed to mean "Verify that the response 
is an error page" whereas what is actually intended is "Verify that the 
response is NOT an error page".

I think the document would actually benefit from a small amount of 
tidying up in that area - maybe to use "verify that" throughout.

3) the names of elements and attributes might benefit from <code> treatment.

4) Capitalization of some of the sub-heads e.g. Use of color => Use of 
Color, Examples of informal evaluation => Examples of Informal Evaluation

I'd offer to do something on this but have my work cut out trying to do 
a new draft of CT by next week.


On 14/09/2009 13:10, Phil Archer wrote:
> Kai, everyone,
> I read through this carefully on the way to the conference I'm at today 
> (ironically about 10 km from Kai's office). I have found a very small 
> number of utterly trivial typos. I'll correct these when I next get a 
> chance (end of the week I guess). Given the nature of the changes I plan 
> to do this without changing the location of the document - unless you 
> want me to create a new version but that seems a little excessive for 
> changes like capitalising a letter, adding a space after a comma and so 
> on ;-)
> Cheers
> Phil.
> Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> Francois was so kind to post the, hopefully final, version of the BPWG
>> Addendum document.
>> You may find this document at
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-m
>> obileOK-pro10-tests-20090914
>> Please read it and give your feedback to the group.
>> My thanks go to Phil, for all of his recent work going through the
>> document, as well as Jo, Manrique and Dan for all of their additions and
>> changes.
>> Thanks
>> Kai
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 15:05:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:54 UTC