Detailed review of Section 1. Introduction.

These are the comments from my detailed review of Section 1.
Introduction.  (

Nothing more than editorial in this section I'm afraid.

1.1. Scope:
"Browsers support many features that are considered [to be] very bad
for accessibility or [that are] otherwise inappropriate.  For example,
the blink element is clearly presentational and authors wishing to
cause text to blink should [instead] use CSS."  - I think this will
read better without the words in square brackets.

"The scope of this specification is not to..." -> "It is not the scope
of this specification to..."

"In particular, hardware configuration software, image manipulation
tools..." - I don't understand the significance or relevance of
"hardware configuration software".  Unless "software" isn't supposed
to be in the sentence.  Or perhaps I just don't understand the
objective of this paragraph.  Maybe the concept in this paragraph
isn't easy to articulate.

1.2. Structure of this specification:
"All [of] these features would be for naught if" - I found "for
naught" quite an unusual term, "for nothing" is more popular, but
perhaps "would be worthless" is more suitable.

1.2.1. How to read this specification:
Quite amusing, are we keeping it as that?

1.3. Conformance requirements
There are many unnumbered headings for the categories of user agents,
perhaps there should be a "1.3.1 Conformance requirements for user
agents", which contains those headings which are numbered accordingly.

1.3.1. Common conformance requirements for APIs exposed to JavaScript
"Unless other specified" - I think this should be "Unless otherwise specified"

1.4. Terminology
"The term HTML documents is sometimes used in contrast with XML
documents to mean specifically documents that were parsed using an
HTML parser" - I think the words "mean specifically" should be swapped

I have finished reviewing Section 1.


Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 21:56:26 UTC