HTML WG comments on CC/PP Structure and Vocabularies Last Call WD (editorial)

Hello,

I'm sending this message on behalf of the HTML WG.  The HTML WG
reviewed the CC/PP Structure and Vocabularies Last Call WD [1],
and we have no substantial comments related to HTML/XHTML.
The following is just a couple of editorial comments related to
HTML/XHTML.  We found other minor editorial issues, but those will
be sent separately.

- "2.1.2 Component attributes" [2], Figure 2-2a:
  The example of "ex:htmlVersionsSupported" contains the value "3.0".
  Although this figure is just a hypothetical profile example, HTML 3.0
  had never been standardized and this may be potentially confusing.
  "3.2" would be preferable.  The same applies to other examples
  showing HTML versions.  Strictly speaking the latest HTML version is
  4.01, but I don't really mind the difference between "4.0" and "4.01"
  for the purpose of showing simple examples.

- "3.3 Defaults" [3], Figure 3-2a:
  The example of "ex:htmlVersionsSupported" contains the value "XHTML",
  but XHTML is not a single specification but a family of specifications,
  and there are plenty of XHTML Family document types, including those
  not defined by the W3C.  Just saying "XHTML" doesn't quite indicate
  what's really supported.  Related to this example, the WAP UAProf
  spec defines both "HtmlVersion" and "XhtmlVersion", which seems more
  desirable rather than conflating HTML and XHTML versions together.
  The same applies to other examples as well.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CCPP-struct-vocab-20030325/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CCPP-struct-vocab-20030325/#xtocid-33666513
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CCPP-struct-vocab-20030325/#ProfileDefaults

Regards,
-- 
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
HTML Activity Lead, Team Contact for the HTML WG

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 17:56:58 UTC