- From: Daniel Barclay <daniel@fgm.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:39:57 -0400
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Regarding the document currently at http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/ :
Section 5 says:
This mapping produces an Infoset, it does not and cannot produce a
PSVI.
That comma isn't correct (it can't join independent clauses); it should
be something else. (A semicolon is one option.)
Similarly, section 6 says:
These are not functions in the literal sense, they are not available for
users or applications to call directly, rather they are descriptions of
the information that an implementation of the data model must expose to
applications.
That first comma should be a semicolon (or other options).
I'm not sure whether the second colon is correct or not, but, in any
case, writing:
... directly. Rather, they are ...
would probably be clearer.
Section 6 also says:
The dm:unparsed-entity-system-id, dm:unparsed-entity-public-id, and
dm:document-uri accessors, which are only available on Document Nodes,
and the dm:in-scope-namespaces accessor, which is only available on
Element Nodes are not included in this summary.
That is missing a balancing comma. It should say:
... and the dm:in-scope-namespaces accessor, which is only available on
Element Nodes, are not included in this summary.
Section 7 says:
... The seven distinct kinds of Node: document, element, attribute, text,
namespace, processing instruction, and comment,] are defined in the
following subsections.
The colon does not seem to be correct (given the structure of the remainder
of the sentence). Perhaps "... seven distinct kinds of Node (document,
element, attribute, text, namespace, processing instruction, and comment)]
are defined" would work.
Section 7.1.1 says:
The children must consist ... if it is not ...
Saying "the children ... it is not ..." is confusing because it sounds
ungrammatical (the singular pronoun "it" doesn't match the plural word
"children") (even though it could be argued that "children" is a name
here and just not a word). That should say:
The children property must consist ... if it is not ...
That is much clearer ("it" clearly refers to the property) and is
grammatical ("children" is clearly used as a name or modifier and
is not the antecedent of "it").
Section 7.2.1 has the same problem.
Section 7.1.2 says:
... when the the Document Node is constructed ...
Section 7.2.2 says "implemenations."
Section 7.4.1 says:
... and in such circumstances, sharing namespace nodes may be a very
reasonable implementation strategy.
I _think_ that is missing a balancing comma between "and" and "in."
Daniel
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 15:40:33 UTC