comments about some JM issues

I have some comments about Jonathan Marsh issues, starting at #84 [1].  I 
think we could actually isolate a collection of these and dispose of them 
fairly quickly.  Many of them are about the form more than the substance 
(and are called Editorial).  Even though Editorial, some of them could have 
major impact.  So I think they deserve at least a quick look by QAWG.

"Editorial" category...

#84, #90:  I don't know what he means by "reflected in structure" and 
"grouped structurally".  Is he saying, have a "DoV Guidelines" chapter and 
an "Other Guidelines" chapter?  IMO, another level of structure adds 
nothing.  [Oops, I see that these two are grouped in a series of "Related 
DoV issues"]

#85:  "self-sufficient guidelines and checkpoints" -- it would be a huge 
amount of work, and take a long time, IMO.

#86:  "Spelling, grammar, and style" -- okay on spelling and grammar; the 
"style" comment -- while I sympathize, on the other hand it is problematic 
to get uniform style with a mix of authors.

#87:  abbreviations -- again, I don't understand his comment (is 'bibloc' 
something from xmlspec?).  I assume that he means the references like 
"[SMIL20]", which indeed should refer to something in References.  Do we 
have instances that do not?

#88:  "reformat bullet list" -- it is not in CP1.3 "provide usage 
scenarios", but there is one in section 1.3 ("motivation and...") and in 
GL3 verbiage.  No opinion on his comment.

#89:  "move the glossary into 1.6" -- I have no strong feeling.  It is done 
both ways (e.g., WAI does it our way).  I slightly prefer our way.

In "Substantive" category, here are some comments/questions:

#97:  "Modules as extension points"  -- I don't understand what he means by 
"point of extension" [This issue is grouped into the 
profiles/modules/levels group]

#103:  "Distributed conformance section OK" -- I think he misunderstands 
the checkpoint (10.1), by his (incorrect) assertion that SpecGL 
fails.  SpecGL has a conformance section, that is a single starting point 
to find all other conformance provisions.  I suggest that 10.1 is too 
terse, and needs a little bit of clarifying discussion.

#105:  Part of the comment is, "nor is it entirely clear that these 
separate sections do not contradict one another."  This is an unprocessable 
comment (how do we prove "no contradiction", in the lack of any asserted 
contradictions?).  Maybe it will go away if we do some consolidating of GLs.

#107:  A[A[A]] priroities versus OpsGL table 1 -- we can make this go away 
by agreeing that we will fix it in OpsGL, which definitely does set up a 
parallel and in some places contradictory requirement.



Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 11:36:31 UTC