RE: Editorial comments on 2 May draft of XSLT 2.0

> 
> I'd like to make two stylistic but important points
> about the 2 May 2003 draft of XSLT 2.0 [1].
> 
> 1) Some words are underlined but are not links. In the context
>    of the Web, this can be confusing. I recommend that some
>    other convention be used to emphasize those words. Some
>    examples are "doc" or "collection".

These should become hyperlinks to a different document in the family of
specs at the next version. I used the "underlined but not linked" convention
as an editorial marker that links should be added when the target documents
were stable enough to allow linking.

> 
> 2) I noted in 2.2 Notation that "An attribute is required
>    if and only if its name is in bold." For accessibility
>    reasons, please do not rely on style alone to convey
>    information, especially normative information. Someone
>    listening to the document read as synthesized speech is
>    likely to miss this. 
> 
>    It's fine to highlight required attributes by using
>    bold text, or colors, for example. But there needs to 
>    (also) be a indication in text. 
> 
>    One suggestion is that in the appendix C, before 
>    "Permitted parent elements", include a line 
>    "Required attributes: a, b, c"
> 

Thanks for this, a useful comment. I'm not immediately sure how best to
address it but will try to meet your concerns.

Michael Kay

Received on Monday, 23 June 2003 10:56:57 UTC