- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:53:31 +0100 (BST)
- To: public-qa-dev@w3.org
I've taken a first look at this, by going through sgml.soc and xml.soc and checking for consistency and omissions. Next stage is to re-generate everything from original sources and diff it to what we have. Question: what's the rationale for the directory naming here? e.g. "REC-html401-19991224" rather than "html401" or just "html" ? This is surely a working SGML catalogue, not a historical record! sgml.soc ======== Serious-looking: HTML 3.0 is missing - is that intentional? "-//IETF//DTD HTML 3.0//EN" Missing declaration: "-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin1//EN//HTML" This one is referenced in both HTML40 and HTML401, so missing it looks rather serious. It exists under other aliases, but this is how it's referenced in the DTDs. Trivial: "ISO 8879-1986//ENTITIES Added Latin 1//EN//HTML" "ISO 8879-1986//ENTITIES Added Latin 1//EN" are in directory IETF, not ISO. Is that intentional? (I have no comparison there - valet puts them all in directory html) The following aliases for HTML 2 DTD exist in Valet but not W3C. Are they all considered dead? "-//IETF//DTD HTML Level 1//EN" "-//IETF//DTD HTML Strict Level 1//EN" "-//IETF//DTD HTML Strict//EN" "-//IETF//DTD HTML i18n//EN" Entities: "-//W3C//ENTITIES Full Latin 1//EN//HTML" "-//W3C//ENTITIES Symbolic//EN//HTML" are commented as under ISO-HTML xml.soc ======= Hmmm, we have (only) flat versions of XHTML11, XHTML Basic, SVG11 and MathML20. Is this really sufficient, or should I propose the modular versions of those four? We're also missing "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Architecture 1.1//EN" INCONSISTENCIES =============== There are three directories not referenced anywhere (duplicates): REC-html40-971218 REC-MathML2-20010221 REC-xhtml1-20000126 There is also one missing directory referenced in xml.soc PR-smil20-20010605 -- Nick Kew
Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 17:54:03 UTC