- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 06:17:47 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Lee Kowalkowski <lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Lee Kowalkowski wrote: > > These are the comments from my detailed review of Section 1. > Introduction. (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#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. As I was reading this, before I got to the last bit you wrote, I was thinking to myself "what are the square brackets for? Oh, they're text I forgot to put in. Yeah he's right, it would read better with that text added." so I'm not sure I agree. :-) > "The scope of this specification is not to..." -> "It is not the scope > of this specification to..." I agree in principle but in this case I'd rather keep it more consistent with the two paragraphs before it. > "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. For example, the Windows Devices Manager would not be in scope of HTML5. That's what that is trying to say. > 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. "For naught" is a Britishism, and I'm British. Deal with it. :-) > 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. That wouldn't work well because after the list (it's a <dl> with name/value pairs, not a bunch of sections) the text would no longer be in the same section as the text before the list. > 1.3.1. Common conformance requirements for APIs exposed to JavaScript > "Unless other specified" - I think this should be "Unless otherwise specified" Fixed. > 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 > around. Fixed. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 9 May 2008 06:18:28 UTC