Re: HTML+RDFa Editorial Comment

Ok, probably final editorial comments for LC.

In 'Status of This Dokument', list item 2 in Changes:
Now:
HEAD and BODY
Suggestion:
Same style like other elements, enclose in 'code', so it will be written 
in small orange? letters.


Just now I see.
Now:
Status of This Document

Suggestion 1:
Status of this Document

Suggestion 2:
Status Of This Document

Suggestion 3:
Status of this document

The whole spec has a different way to approach capital letters. Maybe if 
you have too much time, go through the document again and see if you 
would like to stick to one pattern.
Pattern 1 for headings like in suggestion 1:
One pattern would be, nouns capital, rest small.
Pattern 2 for headings like in suggestion 2:
Everything in capital letters.
Pattern 3 for headings like in suggestion 3:
Only beginning in capital letters, and something like XML Information 
Set, The Golden Age but not nouns.

Suggestion 1 and 2 are nice for the eyes, but it should be only for 
headings and *not* in the normal document text. Suggestion 1 is anyway 
mostly used in the spec, only exceptions are Normative reference and 
Informative reference, where, after pattern 1, 'reference' would be 
capital too.

Following a Ctrl F or Ctrl H list:
- Please check User Agent, user agent is a general term from my point of 
view.

- Please check Web, sometimes capital, sometimes small, suggestion: keep 
it small. Only in Semantic Web Deployment Work Group, it is fine. Ähm, 
is it Work or Working Group?

- I could agree to write Infoset with a capital letter, because it is 
kind of a born child of XML Information Set, but it could be small also, 
even in the Infoset spec it is mixed up. In HTML5, it is small.

- Even 'intial context' as a child of RDF is not in capital letters (my 
argument to keep other words small).

- Media Type to media type?

- Host Language to host language?

- above example 8 is 'Pattern' in italic, maybe small 'pattern'

- 5.2 RDFa Processor to RDFa processor?

2.1 Document conformance, list item 3

Now:
conformant with - 2 occurances
Suggestion:
conform to
Note:
I couldn't connect to conformant mentally, and after "serious" research 
it is clear: conformant is geek language, even cromulent is in 
Wiktionary, but it is a self made word by The Simpsons. Keep it, if you 
have to only. ;-)


2.3 User Agent Conformance, list item 1
Now:
in Conformance requirements section ...
Suggestion:
in 'Section 2.3: Conformance requirements' ...
Note:
It looks so nice in other parts of the spec, when it is a link in blue, 
but I am aware, that a direct link to that part in HTML5 is not possible 
at the moment, so you might just skip this.

3.1 second last list item
Now:
HTML Literal, it is in bold, means included in a dfn
Note:
Is it specified here? Does it need the dfn? Just looks a little odd in 
my eyes.

3.1 second last list item
Now:
All one sentence, translators will start throwing stones and even non 
native english readers of the english text might consider to do so!
Suggestion:
Cut the sentence like:
... the value of the HTML Literal is a string, created by serializing  
nodes to text. This applies to all nodes that are decendants of the 
current element, not including the element itself. The HTML Literal is 
given a datatype of ... .
Note:
I am sure, you might find a better way to express it than me, but be 
kind to your readers.

4. Extensions ..., list item 3
Now:
If any RDFa attribute is present on the |link| or |meta| elements, they 
/must/ be considered flow and phrasing content if used outside of the 
|head| of the document.
Note:
'must be considered flow and phrasing content, if used outside of the 
head of the document'. Hm, I am a novice and don't get the meaning of 
that easily. Is it possible to express that in common HTML of RDF talk, 
what do I have to do with them?

5. Backwards Compatibility
Now:
detail details
Suggestion:
The following sections explain/point out the details of backwards 
compatibility for RDFa processor implementations.
Note:
Do you really say detail xyz details? My version doesn't sound too nice 
either, better idea?

5.1 first paragraph
Now:
While utilizing |@xmlns:| is now frowned upon, there are instances
Suggestion:
But there are instances where it is unavoidable (to use @xmlns:) - ...
Note:
Frowned upon is little bit not specification language and the beginning 
of the sentence doesn't really add any meaning, the sentence before 
already says that. Sorry for wanting to keep the spec boring. Last I 
would feel ok with deprecated instead of frowned.

5.5 DOM ..., second paragraph
Now:
The intent of the RDFa processing instructions are to provide ...
Suggestion:
The intent of the RDFa processing instructions is to provide ...
Note:
The 'intent' is singular, the RDFa processing instructions are plural, 
but the 'intent' is the subject of the sentence and the instructions 
'are' there to confuse you. ;-)

5.4 and 5.5
Now:
agnostic, 2 occurances
Suggestion:
none
Note:
Is agnostic the right word?

5.5.1, in 1. and 2.
Now:
a [IRI mapping], two occurances
Suggestion:
an [IRI mapping]
Note:
I think it is a mapping, but an IRI mapping.

That should be it for now. :-)
Stefan