Re: Comments on 3023bis [all editorial]

I just compared
http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-04_diff.html
with my earlier comments, and most of my earlier
comments appear to have been ignored (or, perhaps,
disagreed with, but in that case, I'd like to know
that for sure).

I have edited my earlier email leaving those that
remain to be processed (and adding a couple new ones).


On 2013-09-18 13:17, Paul Grosso wrote:
>
> On 2013-09-18 10:59, Paul Grosso wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 5.  XML Media types (3023bis)
>>>
>> The latest draft is at
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes/
>>
>> Henry says that this draft needs positive feedback to proceed
>> to the next step.  Henry asks that the XML Core WG send an official
>> endorsement, perhaps with some minor suggestions.
>>
>> ACTION to Paul:  Review 3023-bis.
>
>
> I have reviewed it (again).  I have no substantive comments,
> but many editorial comments, given below.
>
> Henry, is this level of detail appropriate to send in to
> the IETF, or is this just something you, as editor, will
> handle?
>
> paul
>
> ======================
>

[Comment on new text]
Section 3.1, Encoding considerations, first (new) sentence.

There is a use of the word "may" that is not
capitalized.  I don't know if this is a 2119 use and
if so if it should be capitalized.

----

>
> Section 3.1, Interoperability considerations (page 7)
>
> There is a use of the word "recommended" that is not
> capitalized.  I don't know if this is a 2119 use and
> if so if it should be capitalized.
>
> ----
>
> Section 3.1, Change controller (page 8) reads:
>
>  The XML specification is a work product of the
>  World Wide Web Consortium's XML Working Group
>
> If we were referring to the February 1998 version, the WG at
> that time was called the XML Working Group (though the document
> itself says the spec was a product of the XML Activity).  But
> given that the reference to the XML spec is to the 5th Edition,
> and that we are talking about the (supposedly current) change
> controller, I think you want to refer to the "XML Core Working
> Group" here.
>
> ----
>
> Section 3.3, Change controller (page 9)
>
> Ibid.
>
> ----
>
> Section 3.5, Change controller (page 10)
>
> Ibid.
>
> ----
>
> Section 5 Fragment Identifiers, second para, penultimate
> sentence (page 12) reads in part:
>
>  conformant applications MUST
>  interpret such fragment identifiers as designating that part of the
>  retrieved representation specified by [XPointerFramework] and
>  whatever other specifications define any XPointer schemes used.
>
> Maybe it's just me, but I cannot parse the last part of that sentence.

Assuming I'm guessing correctly, perhaps the following
would be a bit clearer:

  ...and whatever other specifications that define any of the
  XPointer schemes that are used.

-----

[Comment on new text]
Section 7. XML Versions, 2nd para, last sentence

There is a use of the word "may" that is not capitalized.

----

>
>
> Section 8.2, Change controller (page 16)
>
> Op. Cit. previous comment on Change controller.
>
> ----
>


[Comment on new text]
Section 9 Examples, 2nd para, end of parenthesized text reads:

   media types which to not enable its use

Presumably, s/to/do/

----

> Section 11, Security Considerations, first para, second
> sentence would be easier to parse with appropriately
> added punctuation, to wit:
>
>  These entities may contain--and recipients may
>  permit--explicit system level commands to be
>  executed while processing the data.
>
> ----
>
> Section 11, Security Considerations, very last "sentence"
> is not a sentence and does not contain a period (full stop).
>
> Perhaps insert at the start of the parenthesized text the
> phrase "Consider the case where" and insert a period before
> the close parenthesis.
>
>
> ----
>
> Section 12.1 Normative References, the [XptrReg] (last) reference.

And now also the [XPtrRegPolicy] reference.

>
> This refers to the web page
> http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-schemes/
> which is not an RFC, standard, or W3C Recommendation,
> so I question if this can be a normative reference.
>
> What are the rules for what can be a normative reference
> in an IETF RFC?  Perhaps this should be moved to the
> informative references section.
>
> ----
>
> Appendix B. Changes from RFC 3023, second para, first sentence
>
> missing close paren
>
> ----
>
> paul
>
>
>
>