Issues from structure reviews


Since today's telecon was cancelled, I hope we can discuss and solve 
a few issues on the mailing list.

Below are questions and comments resulting from Carlos Iglesias' new 
reviews of two test samples, followed by my own comments.

* CI: The e-mail addresses of the submitters of the test samples are 
not available in the Test Sample Status List [1].

* CI: What happens if there is no mention of an organization on whose 
behalf the test sample is submitted?
CS: Once we have a form for test sample submission in place, the form 
should say that we will assume that the submitter submitted the test 
sample on their own behalf if they don't fill in the field for 'organization'.

* CI: Should the embedded JavaScript be in a separate file?
CS: Yes, see resolution 9 January 2007 [2].

* CI: What's the correct format for dates, integer and literal values?
  - date: initial value is CVS keyword $Date$, and CVS takes care of the rest
  - version: initial value is CVS keyword $Revision$, and CVS takes 
care of the rest
  (dc:creator and dc:rights are covered by on of the other questions;
   see the values in the TCDL template[3].)

* CI: The rule reference is not valid (does not exist).
CS: Strangely, the rulesets.xml file on the BenToWeb site is out of 
date. This will be fixed as soon as possible.

* CI: What kind/version of pointers vocabulary should be used?
CS: There was agreement that we should use HTTP-in-RDF for ths, but 
there was never a formal resolution (I checked all the minutes since 
the beginning of October 2006). The pointer vocabulary in TCDL 2.0 is 
up to date with the current editor's draft of HTTP-in-RDF, but the 
old-style pointers are also still there (and will be removed when 
HTTP-in-RDF becomes stable).

* CI: Test file for sc2.5.1_l1_003 refers to another file called 
"processformdummy.html" which is not in CVS and which does not follow 
our naming convention.
CS: The file needs to be submitted and follow our naming convention.

* CI: Test file for sc2.5.1_l1_003 uses JSP, which is not interpreted 
by the W3C server. Does valid markup refer only to HTML or also to JSP?
CS: Since we had a resolution that pointers refer to generated code, 
I assume that valid markup refers to HTML. Of course, this point is 
moot when the server does not process JSP. We need to address this 
before this file can continue through the rest of the process.

* CI: Does "correct links" only refer to A elements or also to LINK 
elements etc?
CS: My understanding from earlier discussions is that LINK elements 
are also covered (i.e. basically any reference with a URI).

Any other comments?

Best regards,



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 


Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 14:56:29 UTC