Re: Review of LC-2418

detailed review attached

Le 08/11/2010 13:39, Thierry MICHEL a écrit :
> Per my action Item, I have done a review of LC-2418
>
>
> Items NOT implemented in the spec: (Must do)
> --------------------------------------------
>
> * ed3.:
> ------- You have a CSS rule that sets margin-{top,bottom} to 0.3em on li
> and p. This makes your document quite hard to read, I have to go tinker
> with it in Firebug in order to go through it. Please don't change some
> of the fundamental style rules from the basic W3C style.
> → NOT Done, still there:
> li, p { margin-top: 0.3em; margin-bottom: 0.3em; }
> I had asked Wonsuk to remove the CSS from the document and link to an
> external CSS page.
> See:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Sep/0045.html
>
>
>
> * substantial16:
> ----------------
> "A controlled vocabulary such as [BCP 47] SHOULD be used." What are the
> cases in which this rule has an exception?
> → NOT done
> → the spec still says « The language used in the resource. A controlled
> vocabulary such as [BCP 47] SHOULD be used ». resolution was to change
> to RECOMMEND.
>
> * substantial17:
> ----------------
> "it MAY also define a coordinate system that can be used to interpret
> these measurements" Is there a controlled vocabulary for these?
> Everywhere that there's something that looks like there could be one
> (e.g. whenever something has a "type" this should be indicated).
> → NOT done
> → the statement in the spec is *unchanged*.
> → the example of a geocoordinateis is *not added*
> Resolutuon was: [About ""it MAY also define a coordinate system that can
> be used to interpret these measurements" Is there a controlled
> vocabulary for these? ", we will give an example of a geocoordinate that
> can be used in this case and rephrase the sentence to avoid the
> confusion about "interpreting the measurements" in the next version of
> the document.]
>
>
> I am unsure about this Item
>
> ed19.:
> -----
> In general it would be helpful if you could be clearer about what the
> normative statements apply to. What is it that MUST do this or that? Is
> it an abstract usage of an ontology? A concrete implementation?
> Something else?
>
>
>
> Items implemented in the spec: OK
> ---------------------------------
>
> * ed1.:→ OK Done: removed
> * ed2.: → OK Done: removed
> * ed4.: → OK Done:
> * ed5.: → OK Done: statement removed
> * ed6.: → OK Done: statement removed
> * ed.7: → OK Done: splitted
> * ed8.: → OK Done:
> * ed9.: → OK Done: statement removed
> * substantive 11: → OK Done: HTML5 statement removed
> * ed12.: → OK Done: statement removed
> * ed13.: → OK Done:
> * ed14.: → OK Done: statement removed
> * substantial15: → OK Done: removed) replaced by MUST use this
> * substantial18: → OK Done : Added
> * ed.20: → OK Addressed: columns not removed, but OK as we have added N/A.
> * ed.21:→ OK Done: explanation added)
> * substantial 22: → Done OK- Xpath expressions harmonized
> * ed.23: → (OK done- section removed)
>
>
>
> For more details see my review attached
>
>
>
>
>
>