W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pronunciation@w3.org > March 2021

Fwd: Comments on Pronunciation Technical Approach

From: Roy Ran <ran@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 22:03:00 +0800
To: "public-pronunciation@w3.org" <public-pronunciation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f80c8729-0060-1c00-ebd2-a48d5dcf6c56@w3.org>
FYI, Comments from Michael.



-------- 转发的消息 --------
主题: 	Comments on Pronunciation Technical Approach
重新发送日期: 	Mon, 08 Mar 2021 22:22:21 +0000
Resent-From: 	group-apa-chairs@w3.org
日期: 	Mon, 8 Mar 2021 17:22:18 -0500
From: 	Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
收件人: 	group-apa-chairs@w3.org <group-apa-chairs@w3.org>



  * Abstract should be about the document, not the TF, and more detail
    about why the doc exists.
  * In the intro, the paragraph beginning "This proposal represents a
    decision point..." is not clear, it seems to jump subject a lot.
  * I'm looking for, somewhere in the intro and possibly this para, a
    clear indication that there are two approaches being considered, but
    that at this point neither are explicitly on path to Recommendation,
    we actively want feedback on them in order to choose. I think this
    is more than a paragraph.
  * The section "Background on Pronunciation" has only three sentences.
    That is not enough to justify a section. I think the section is
    needed, so it should have more content. While there are links, it
    would be important to summarize the content of the links so a reader
    can a) be introduced without having to follow links and b)
    understand why they might want to follow those links for more detail.
  * I find myself completely disoriented starting to read the section
    Multi-attribute Approach. I can't tell what it is, and how it
    relates to the introductory material I've already read. Partly the
    Intro needs expansion, but partly this section needs more than a
    paragraph at the top.
  * Jumping straight into a code example also threw me off. Not having
    read the section yet, I couldn't tell what parts of the example to
    focus on, nor what I might learn from it prior to reading the rest
    of the section.
  * Most of the sections describings specific attributes, or whatevers
    the subsections are in the single-attribute approach, need content
    explaining what the feature does. Saying they exist and a value
    template is not enough information for people to understand their
    role in the model.
  * There should be a pros / cons section, either one in each approach,
    or a section following them comparing them and giving pros and cons
    as we understand them.

Michael
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2021 14:03:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 10 March 2021 14:03:13 UTC