- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:15:52 +0100
- To: Renato Iannella <renato.iannella@monegraph.com>, "Michael Steidl (IPTC)" <mdirector@iptc.org>, Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>, 'Stuart Myles' <SMyles@ap.org>, James Birmingham <james.birmingham@cde.catapult.org.uk>, Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>, W3C POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
Dear vocab editors, I've begun to process the vocab document as I'd like to get the FPWD requests in ASAP before Thursday's publication. I've made a start but I'm afraid I need you to make some changes before I can complete the processing. I've done what I can but I'm in danger of overstepping the line between team contact and editor. As discussed in the meeting, I've changed odrl-vocab to vocab-odrl. Then I ran the document through the link checker, see https://validator.w3.org/checklink This threw up some 404s in the links to Onix and Open Mobile Alliance, If you can find where those documents have moved to, so much the better but we shouldn't link to unstable URIs. Links within the doc must all be valid. The checker doesn't understand RDF so things like the link to owl:Thing are fine, as long as the actual file is retrievable. Seeing this also made me notice that there is no list of prefixes and namespaces used. There's usually one like https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-duv/#namespaces-1 My biggest problem, however, is the use of nested tables. This is a definite no-no as it is very much against both accessibility guidelines and responsive Web design. Please can you re-organise the doc so that it does not use nested tables. I have also replaced all the instances of <td><b>....</b></td> with <th>. Ideally, there shouldn't be any inline styles; certainly the doc should include multiple definitions oft he same inline style as is currently the case. The nested tables include a background colour definition and width. If you want to set a style, use a class and do it that way. It's your document, not mine, so you make editorial decisions but I question the use of two tables per term. Can they not all be included in one? I admit as a reader I find that very confusing. Also, I notice that for each term there are two distinct definitions. For example, the definition of Policy is, apparently, both An entity to capture the statements of the policy and A top level entity for describing policies. That's a mistake, surely? Sorry to be a task master but the current document won't pass our publication rules. Thanks Phil. -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Monday, 18 July 2016 15:14:32 UTC