Re: HNTF requirement document ready for publication

On 11/24/2011 06:05 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:
> Hi Giuseppe,
>
> Thanks a lot for generating this HTML version of the requirements
> document!
>
> I have several meta comments.
>
> 1. Review deadline
> -------------------
>
> We usually give one week to group participants for review. So maybe
> it would be better to accept comments until Nov. 30, etc., wouldn't
> it?
>
> 2. Authors
> -----------
>
> I think we should list the names of HNTF participants who contributed
> to this document as "Author" right below "Editor" :)
>
> 3. Checkers & Guidelines
> -------------------------
>
> We need to check the document using several checkers, e.g., the
> Pubrules checker [1], before the publication. Most of the errors
> currently pointed out by the checkers are editorial and minor, but I
> think we need to clarify the following:
>
> - Currently HTML5 is used as the DOCTYPE, but it mght be better to use
> a stable version of HTML, e.g., HTML 4.01, for an IG Note at this
> moment. Please note that even the HTML5 spec [2] uses HTML 4.01 :)
>
> - Every marked-up section and subsection of the document MUST have a
> target anchor. So we have to add "id" attributes to all the heading
> elements. Could you please add them?
>
> Also please note that there is the "Manual of Style" guideline which
> contains best practices on document style. For example, it recommends
> we should use a specific style for RFC2119 keywords as follows:
> [[
> When these key words are used in the RFC sense, make them UPPERCASE,
> enclose them in the em element, and style them with CSS to make the
> UPPERCASE readable.
>
> <em title="MUST in RFC 2119 context"
> class="RFC2119">MUST</em>
>
> .RFC2119 {
> text-transform: lowercase;
> font-style: italic;
> }
> ]]

Regarding the style, I've just found the current HTML version uses
"ReSpec.js" and dynamically generate the style.  If there is agreement
to go for that direction (=using ReSpec.js instead of XMLSpec or
directly editing HTML) within the IG, we don't have to follow all
the guidelines.

Please see also the discussion on the Chairs list [3] (member-only)
about ReSpec.js.

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2011JulSep/thread.html#msg105

Thanks,

Kazuyuki

  
> Francois and myself are happy to help you modify the document based on
> the checkers and the guideline if needed.
>
> [1] Pubrules checker:
> http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http%3A%2F%2Fservices.w3.org%2Ftidy%2Ftidy%3FpassThroughXHTML%3D1%26docAddr%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdvcs.w3.org%252Fhg%252Fwebtv%252Fraw-file%252Fed956fac0f9c%252Fhnreq%252Fhnreq.html&xslfile=http%3A%2F%2Fservices.w3.org%2Fxslt%3Fxmlfile%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2F07%2Fpubrules%253Fuimode%253Dchecker_full%2526year%253D2010%2526docstatus%253Dfpig-note-tr%2526rectrack%253Dno%2526prevrec%253Ddoesnotapply%2526patpol%253Dw3c%2526normative%253Ddoesnotapply%2526uri%253Dhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fdvcs.w3.org%25252Fhg%25252Fwebtv%25252Fraw-file%25252Fed956fac0f9c%25252Fhnreq%25252Fhnreq.html%2526filterValues%253Dform%2526nscheckmanual%253D%2526display%253Dall%2526recursive%253Doff%2526recurse_auth%253Don%26xslfile%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2F09%2Fchecker%2Fframe.xsl%26display%3Dall%26recurse_auth%3Don&uimode=checker_full&filterValues=form&year=2010&docstatus=fpig-note-tr&rectrack=no&prevrec=doesnotapply&patpol=w3c&normative=doesnotapply&
do
> c_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdvcs.w3.org%2Fhg%2Fwebtv%2Fraw-file%2Fed956fac0f9c%2Fhnreq%2Fhnreq.html&recursive=off&nscheckmanual=&display=all&recurse_auth=on
>
> [2] Manual of Style: http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#References
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kazuyuki
>
>
> On 11/24/2011 01:04 AM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> the hntf requirement document is ready for publication as a group note.
>>
>> While turning it into a proper W3C document together with Francois (thanks for the help!),
>> we did some small changes, fixed some typos and few other things that didn't look right.
>>
>> So I would like to give the group the opportunity to check such changes.
>> The latest version of the document is available here:
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/ed956fac0f9c/hnreq/hnreq.html
>>
>> A diff version with some changes highlighted is available here:
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fdvcs.w3.org%2Fhg%2Fwebtv%2Fraw-file%2F4831cdba407b%2Fhnreq%2Fhnreq.html&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fdvcs.w3.org%2Fhg%2Fwebtv%2Fraw-file%2Fed956fac0f9c%2Fhnreq%2Fhnreq.html
>>
>> The diff does not show all changes, in particular other changes applied to the document are:
>> 1. a dependency in U4 that doesn't exist anymore was dropped.
>> 2. a reference to UPnP Precision Time Synchronization in U13 was moved back to the v3 since I couldn't find a v4 of AV transport spec that could be linked directly.
>> 3. the abstract is now limited to its last paragraph.
>> 4. Updated the Status of This Document section, both boilerplate and non boilerplate parts.
>> 5. RFC 2119 words highlighted.
>> 6. adapted the format for some of the use cases, not to go too deep in nested lists.
>>
>> Deadline for comments is end of Monday next week (28th). We aim to publish it on the 1st of December and share it with the DAP group for comments after that.
>>
>> /g
>>
>>
>

-- 
Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
Tel: +81 466 49 1170

Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 21:53:04 UTC