- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 21:36:08 +0900
- To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Hi Thierry, many thanks for spotting this. I agree with you and will make the change. One question: which items would you put in the normative references section, which into non-normative section? I'm asking since the document will probably end up as a non-normative Working Group Note. Just for the editors: in XMLSPEC the direct linking is the <loc> element <loc href="http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/emotion/XGR-emotionml-20081120/">EmotionsML 1.0</loc> the indirect linking is the <bibref> element <bibref ref="xmp"/> Felix Thierry Michel さんは書きました: > > Hi Felix, > > I suggest we should homogenized the external links in the document. > > There are cases where the liking is done directly to the resource, as > for example > <a > ref="http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/emotion/XGR-emotionml-20081120/">EmotionsML > 1.0</a>, > <a href="http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html">Geolocation API > specification</a> > > In other cases the linking is done indirectly to a reference index as for > <a href="#xmp">XMP</a> > > > I think we should always use indirect linking and have two sections > for references. One should be the Normative and the other Informative > References. We could also use styling to differentiate Normative vs > Informative. > > Here is an example of code for the link > > > ... XMP <a href="#ref-XMP" rel="biblioentry" class="noxref"><span > class="normref">[XMP]</span></a> ... > > with following piece of code for the reference in normative ref > section link > > > > <h2 id="refs" > <a name="refs"> References</a></h2> > > <h3 id="refs-normative"><a name="refs-normative">Normative > References</a></h3> > <dl> > <dt><strong><a class="normref" name="ref-XMP">[XMP]</a></strong></dt> > <dd> <a > href="http://www.adobe.com/devnet/xmp/pdfs/XMPSpecificationPart2.pdf"><em>XMP > Specification Part 2 - Standard Schemas.</em></a>", Adobe. 2008. <br> > This document is available at > http://www.adobe.com/devnet/xmp/pdfs/XMPSpecificationPart2.pdf. > </a></dd> > > > Best, > > Thierry. > > > > Bailer, Werner wrote: >> Dear Felix, all, >> >> I've had a look at the draft and I have a few (minor) comments: >> >> - in the 2nd par. of the introduction there are missing references to >> the XG documents; the question is also if we should list here formats >> that we have not considered in our mapping table (e.g. iTunes XML) >> - 3rd par. of introduction: the formulation "access to selected >> metadata" could be misunderstood, we should make clear that the API will >> allow access to all elements defined by the ontology (which are selected >> elements from different formats) >> - sect. 4: "not" in "MUST not" should be written in uppercase >> - requirement 13 should be requirement r13 >> - what is the policy about use of British or American English? Currently >> it's mixed. >> >> Best regards, >> Werner >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org >>> [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix >>> Sasaki >>> Sent: Freitag, 19. Dezember 2008 18:05 >>> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org; public-media-fragment@w3.org >>> Subject: Media annotations requirements draft >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> an update of the media annotations use cases and requirements draft >>> is at >>> http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/mediaont-req.html >>> we are looking forward for feedback until January 12th, and want to >>> publish a first draft on Monday 19th. >>> >>> Have a nice holiday and a good new year. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Felix >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 25 December 2008 12:36:56 UTC