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

RE: Reaching a final version of Addendum to BPWG

From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:20:34 +0200
Message-ID: <FF6AD6C11AA23F4F9866E9A3C57602EDCB9DBB@QEO00217.de.t-online.corp>
To: "Manrique Lopez" <manrique.lopez@fundacionctic.org>, "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Cc: "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org>, "Public MWBP" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi Manrique,

Not to worry, it's taken care of.

-- Kai 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manrique Lopez [mailto:manrique.lopez@fundacionctic.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:35 PM
> To: Jo Rabin
> Cc: Phil Archer; Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich; Public MWBP
> Subject: Re: Reaching a final version of Addendum to BPWG
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I could have some time to make these changes during this week 
> if you don't mind.
> 
> And yes, I should have rewriten 3.23 to "verify that" and add 
> the "NOT"
> as you mention. Even the second check should also add a "NOT":
> * Verify that the response is NOT a page asking the user to 
> fix some data. (if default values are "valid", it wouldn't be 
> needed to fix
> anything)
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> El mar, 15-09-2009 a las 16:04 +0100, Jo Rabin escribió:
> > 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.
> > 
> > Jo
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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 Wednesday, 16 September 2009 15:21:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:09:02 UTC