- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 01:18:16 +0900
- To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Hi Thierry, Thierry Michel さんは書きました: > Felix Sasaki wrote: >> 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. > > > I think the publication of the document (Working Group Note or REC is > orthogonal to the normative / informative refs. the difference > between a Working Group Note or a REC is the *endorsement* of the W3C. > > Now which items should you put in the normative vs Informative > references section depends on the level of dependency with the reference. > > By default all references should be in the Informative references > section, but references with strong dependency should be moved to > normative references section. This should be a must when a reference > is mentioned within a normative section or paragraph. > > In our case, for example "RFC 2119" in "4. Terminology" section > should be linked to a normative reference. Many thanks for pointing out for describing the parameters for classifying normative vs. non-normative. What do you or others think: which references except RFC 2119 should be normative? Felix > > Thierry. > > > >> >> 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 16:18:57 UTC