syntax review (points for Dave, Eric, Brian)

This is a review of the draft syntax draft number 1.502

I will start with the points for Eric and Brian 

Eric:

In the SOTD it describes the changes from M&S.
I draw this to your attention since SOTD belongs to you.
A possible change would be to delete the para
"This documents revises ..."
and to move the following para into the introduction


Brian:

There were a few places where I did not like the wording.
Unfortunately I haven't time to suggest better wording, so I wondered if you 
would double check, and then if you agree with me that the current wording 
should be improved please suggest to Dave.

These points were:

the last para of 6.1.4


The word "must" in the last para of the dfefn of striong value in 6.1.8 and 
6.1.9

Also the whiteSpace facet note at end of 6.1.9


Dave
====

Here starts the review


Suggest delete
section 1 para 2 historical interest only, minimally change tense

throughout check every occurerence of "Working Drfat" and update to "Proposed 
Recommendation" appropriately

2.1 para 3
... appending ... after ...
suggest s/after/to/

2.1 para 3 sentence 3
INCORRECT?
Suggest
RDF URI references identifying subject and object nodes can also be stored as 
XML attribute values.
(delete last phrase)

2.1 para 3. suggest s/value/values/ at very end of para

2.2 immediatly after figure

suggest
s/The Figure 2/The left hand side of Figure 2/

Para before example 1
suggest
... the sequence of three nodes and two predicate arcs on the left hand side 
of Figure 2 ...

2.8 suggest saying explicitly that xml:lang has no effect

2.9 example 10
weakly suggest
inserting a newline between int">123
i.e.
s/int">123/int"\n   >123/

so that the page is wide enough

2.14
I copied you on the spurious defect report on ARP concerning what to do when 
no base URI for the document is known and no xml:base is given.
It might be worth adding to this section that
"Both forms require a base URI to be known, either from xml:base or for the 
RDF/XML document." (probably could do with wordsmithing)

2.16 para 1 
suggest delete last sentence

4 Registration note still has a FIXME in it - but I don't understand this part

5.2 in contrast with 2.14 this is clear enough on base URIs

6 first para - very good

7.2.19
suggest 
s/is given, the above/is given, either of the above/

relaxng grammar not reviewed

in change list suggest spelling Duerst with a u-umlaut


I support moving this document to PR

Jeremy

Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 03:54:26 UTC