Re: updated draft for discussion

Thank you Samuel for these comments and for prioritizing them. This 
helps a lot. I will enter the changes through pull-requests so that they 
are easier to process and more apt for discussion. I will try to link 
these issues to the individual pull-requests.

Best,
   Shadi


On 23.2.2015 15:45, Yod Samuel Martín wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Just for the record, I have submitted a batch of comments as Github issues, below are the links to them (do not expect any further issues from my side in the next days).
>
> Major issues:
> - Feature boxes throughout section 2 #73: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/73
> - 2.1.1. Content Formats: Stylesheets and scripts as separate sub-items of markup resources #74: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/74
> - 2.1.2 Content Negotiation #77: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/77
>
> Minor or mild issues:
> - Document acronym (ETF) #70: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/70
> - Introduction: example referring to CMS #71: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/71
> - List of Features (introduction) #72: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/72
> - 2.1.1. Content Formats: Rich Internet Applications #75: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/75
> - 2.1.1 Content formats (minor and mild comments) #76: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/76
> - 2.1.2.1 Cookies (definition) #78: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/78
> - 2.1.2.1 Cookies: note on other storage mechanisms #79: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/79
>
> Editorial issues (Samuel) #69 (up to section 2.1.2.2): https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/69
>
> Regards,
>
> Samuel.
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 18 de febrero de 2015 15:08
> Para: ERT WG
> Asunto: updated draft for discussion
>
> Dear group,
>
> After long delays, there is finally a new document for discussion:
>
> # Reference document with agreed changes:
>    - https://w3c.github.io/w3c-waet/WAET.html
>
> # Suggested update for discussion:
>    - http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-WAET20141215
>
> Note that the suggested update includes significant rewrites for most sections, which may have introduced unintended technical inaccuracies.
> This needs to be reviewed and discussed where issues are identified.
>
> Some of the key objectives for this suggested update was to:
>    - Provide summaries for each feature, to give people an overview the first time they read the document, and to serve as a quick reference when people look back at the document (eg. to re-lookup a feature).
>    - Tighten up the wording and describe each feature more clearly. For example, compare section  "2.1.5 Static code evaluation vs. rendered DOM evaluation" with the updated "2.1.5 Content Rendering".
>    - Tried to give the headings shorter yet more meaningful titles; an attempt to organize the sections in a less arbitrary way; and lots of grammar and editorial improvements throughout.
>
>
> Again, this is just a suggestion for discussion. Please compare these two versions and provide your thoughts and comments.
>
> Regards,
>     Shadi
>
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>
>
> ---
> Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast! Antivirus está activa.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
>

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)

Received on Monday, 23 February 2015 15:14:54 UTC