feedback on the draft

Editorial:

3. Conformance 

The document defines clearly that it uses the terms MUST, SHOULD, MAY and so on in line with RFC2119. This is good practice, and helps many spec users recognise what is meant. But it uses (beginning about the next line) SHALL throughout, which is undefined, and an uncommon word in modern english. I suggest replacing every instance of shall with must.

5.7
The definitions of each item here would be far clearer with an actual example.
It would be very helpful to choose a single formalism for syntax. 

The example of an attribute which *I think* can be either

ittp:progressivelyDecodable="true"
or
ittp:progressivelyDecodable="false"
would be more helpful if it were described much as the following attribute, which says what elements it applies to, what values it can take, etc.

8.1.4
NRGA(Ii)= (width of Ii ) • height of Ii )
 - there appears to be an excess right parethensis

generally
An example document, or several, would be a very helpful addition.

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:52:57 UTC