- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:36:03 +1000
- To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Cc: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Heya :) If you want to replace formatting and make it more consistent, I think we're all happy for you to just go ahead. I have no problem with replacing <eg> with something more appropriate. I've used what I understood to be the correct markup, but I didn't spend much time to investigate. Your editing experience is certainly better than mine. I'm sure nobody will object to formatting improvements! Cheers, Silvia. 2009/4/7 Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>: > Dear Jack, > >> I think I've finished my chapter of the WD (chapter 7, >> <http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#naming-fragment>). > >> There's still quite a few ednotes in there, and also I'd like someone to >> review it for stuff that I've missed (or over-specified), etc. > > So this is my take on it ... > <summary>Brilliant chapter, thanks!</summary> > > My only detailed comments are formatting: > - I have renamed the section heading and corrected some typos directly in > the xml document, see the newest revision 1.27 > - In the section 7.2, could we use something else than <eg> for the > examples, e.g. <example>? For each section, could we write on the same line > in a comment (// or /* ... */) the semantics of the fragment, e.g. > t=120, /* temporal fragment starting at t=120s and finishing at the > end of the media */ > - I do not understand your editorial note in the section 7.2.1? > - Could we put a reference to NPT and SMPTE in the document in 7.2.1 the > first time they occur? > - In the section 7.2.3, should we add an editorial note referring to the > ISSUE-4 in the tracker, raised by Silvia, regarding the pre-definition of > track names? > - I really like the note you wrote at the end of the section 7.2.4 > regarding the possible confusion with xml:id. Could we put this note in a > more visible format? Again, use what xmlspec offer, I think the range is > broad. > - Section 7.3: do we have a suitable element in xmlspec that could repace > the <pre>? > > Raphaël > > -- > Raphaël Troncy > CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), > Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands > e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com > Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093 > Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312 > Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/ > >
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 13:36:56 UTC