Hi All, Another follow-up to this review. At 10:28 18/12/2006, Carlos Iglesias wrote: >As per my action item from the last teleconference here we have the >structure review (step 2) of the third test sample with some comments > >* contact information of the submitter is available; (see comments >to the previous test sample) >* all necessary files are committed and available; > >The metadata file is not well-formed I have fixed this. >The test sample content is not functional (not being interpreted at >the server) In the JSP code, there is also a reference to a file called "processformdummy.html", which is not available and which does not follow our file name convention. >* all necessary files follow the naming conventions; (see comments >to the previous test sample) See my previous comment about "processformdummy.html". >The test sample content includes copyright information that is >different from the metadata copyright information This has been removed; see Vangelis' mail. >(...) >Apparently the locations refer to the server-side language not to >the generated content. Is this what we expect? This will be discussed in a separate thread. >Initial content review can't be done since the example is not functional That requires JSP support at the W3C website. Best regards, Christophe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htmReceived on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 15:41:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:53:26 UTC