W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Someone to review my WD chapter?

From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:20:35 +0200
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D99F74FE-E664-4BB3-99D3-F4658FDCE0EB@cwi.nl>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>

On 7 apr 2009, at 14:54, RaphaŽl Troncy wrote:

> 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 tried this, but it has a number of problems:
- it looses formatting: <eg> is pre-formattted, <example> does  
- it looses the fixed-width font.
Also, the double-lined box is butt-ugly, but I assume that's going to  
be different in the final publishing form.

But all in all I would like to stick with <eg>, especially because my  
examples are pre-formatted.

>  - 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.

I've left this for now: at some point we should decide on  
typographical distinction between all sorts of stuff: normative vs.  
informative text, warnings like these, examples, etc etc etc.

>  - Section 7.3: do we have a suitable element in xmlspec that could  
> repace the <pre>?

I've used <eg>.
Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma  
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 08:21:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:27:42 UTC