RE: Review of FPWD Conneg-by-AP

Thanks a lot, Lars.

Please see my comments inline.

> [snip]
>
>> although I would recommend fixing at
>> least those editorial issues concerning lack of compliance with the W3C
>ReSpec
>> template. I'll create PRs for at least some of them.
>
>That's your comments 0, 2, 6 and 8, right?

Yep :)

> [snip]
>
>> 5. Section 5.2:
>>
>> [[
>> 1. list profiles
>> a server responds to a client with the list of profile URIs for the profiles it is
>able to
>> deliver resource representations conforming to
>> ]]
>>
>> I wonder whether there's something missing at the end of the sentence
>> ("conforming to" what?)
>
>The sentence is correct but admittedly hard to read. "conforming to" refers
>to the profiles in the list of profile URIs. It's hard to come up with a catchy
>definition. My best attempt would be:
>[[
>A server responds to a client with a list of profile URIs. For each URI in that
>list, the server can deliver at least one resource representation conforming
>to the profile identified by that URI."
>]]
>
>Does that make sense?

+1. Thanks!

>
>> 6. Section 7: The link to the test suite must be included in config.js
>> (https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/testSuiteURI), which will take care of
>including
>> it into the "Status of this document" section.
>>
>> 7. Section 8: The link to the implementation must be included in config.js
>> (https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/implementationReportURI), which
>will take
>> care of including it into the "Status of this document" section. Also, I think
>the
>> implementation report should be placed in the DXWG wiki space.
>
>Ah, thanks, I wasn't aware of those... Can/should we still have separate
>sections for test suite and implementations or does ReSpec take care of that
>as soon as we include them in config.js?

AFAIK, there's no rule preventing the inclusion of a specific section for implementations and test suites.

>I've created PR #567 to add the links to config.js. I'm not sure where to keep
>the implementation report(s) and that's probably something we need to
>address in a plenary meeting.

Looking at what other WGs have done, there are a number of options:

The more "traditional" one is the WG wiki space - e.g., 
- https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_Implementations

- https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/OWL_Time_Ontology_adoption


Another option is using the WG GH repo - e.g.:
- http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html

- https://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/ 

Cheers,

Andrea


>Best,
>
>Lars

Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2018 16:07:06 UTC