- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:53:09 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20041023125201.00bb6060@mailserver.nist.gov>
The following are comments by Richard >-----Original Message----- >From: Kennedy, Richard T >Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 3:34 PM >To: 'Lynne Rosenthal' >Subject: Re: Review of Draft > >Lynne, >My comments follow in red. The text in braces explains the changes. >Good Practice: Provide examples, use cases, and graphics >What does this mean? >Illustrate concepts, behaviors, functionality, interaction, etc. through >what ever whatever {per Merriam-Webster Dictionary whatever is the proper >form when used as an adjective} means makes sense, such as examples, use >cases, graphics, and sample code. This aids in the understanding of the >specification, especially for areas that are innately complex or for which >the Working Group has had to explain to its members or the public. >Additionally, a set of broad examples and use cases can help to clarify >the specification s scope. > >Why care.? {Interrogative should end with question mark} >It is difficult to understand some concepts, behaviors, functionality >other aspects of a specification without informative interpretations to >aid the reader. Some concepts, behaviors, functionality, or other aspects >of a specification are difficult to understand without informative >interpretations to aid the reader. {Original sentence is passive} >Providing the reader with additional information beyond the specification >s prose, {Superfluous comma} can only help in achieving implementation and >interoperability. > >Techniques: >It is up to tThe Working Group to determines {Original sentence is >passive} the best way to illustrate the scope and other parts of the >specification. Typically, the nature of the specification will influence >the type of examples, uses cases, graphics, etc. {The abbreviation for et >cetera should end with a period} that make sense. > >1. Develop use cases to illustrate the specification scope. Use an >{Missing indefinite article} easy-to-understand narrative to describe >situations that are applicable to the specification. > >2. Provide an example for each behavior or functionality that was resolved >from an Iissue. {The word issue normally would not have an initial capital >letter. The sentence should end in a period} > >3. Provide an example to illustrate the meaning of abstract notations >(e.g., BNF). {The purpose of the text in the parentheses is unclear to me. >The sentence should end in a period} > >4. Provide an example for each chapter in the specification. {The sentence >should end in a period} >5. Describes the language features through numerous examples and >compliment them by references to the normative texts. {The sentence should >end in a period} > >6. Reference a non-normative tutorial document which that {Proper use of >the reflective relative pronoun} includes informative explanation of >concepts, behavior, or functionality. {Is the term non-normative >understood by this document's audience or defined somewhere in the document?} > >7. Provide non-normative references to resources such as books, >specification annotation, and {Missing conjunction} test sets. These >references provide annotations to the specification, pictorial >illustrations, and explanations of specification rules. {Is the term >non-normative understood by this document's audience or defined somewhere >in the document?} > >Examples: >For markup specifications, provide at least one example of each markup >construct.; i Illustrate each transformation capability with an example >showing input and output. {More readable if not a compound sentence} > >(Taken from Examples and Techniques ><http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/09/qaframe-spec-extech-20030912>http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/09/qaframe-spec-extech-20030912) >{Missing closing parentheses} > >SVG. For each element of the SVG specification, you there will have be the >verbose definition of the element, the DTD definition, the attribute >definitions, {Per prior comment} and an example. For example, in the >definition of the element <http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/shapes.html>rect, you >will find contains <http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/shapes.html>precise examples >with the markup to generate the rect, a rendering of this markup as an >image to aid in its help people to visualizatione what it should be, and >an original version of the markup to test it as a separate file. {Removed >2nd person references} > >HTML 4.01. The HTML 4.01 specification has been dDesigned in a to be very >educative, the HTML 4.01 specification way. It has strong caveats with >regards to the implement ability and the definition of testability. But by >Because of its design, the specification has very good examples. An >important thing that you must say when you give an example is whether or >not the rendering of the example is mandatory. When an example is given, >it is important to state whether the rendering of the example is >mandatory. {Reworded for clarity} Many developers try to mockup a rendered >example when a specific rendering is not mandatory. {I'm uncertain as to >the meaning and scope of this warning} > >When the HTML 4.01 specification defines the ><http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/text.html>elements >strong and ><http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/text.html>em and >gives examples of it them {Elements is plural}, it clearly says states >{Specification don't speak} that "The presentation of phrase elements >depends on the user agent. Generally, visual user agents present EM text >in italics and STRONG text in bold font. Speech synthesizer user agents >may change the synthesis parameters, such as volume, pitch and rate >accordingly." It This example would have even been better to if it >mentioned that user agents should not assume specific rendering for these >elements. {Explain why it would have been better} > >As this is my first effort, did I provide you with useful feedback? > >Richard T. Kennedy >Web Services Team >Puget Sound Information Technology >Boeing Information Technology >The Boeing Company >PO Box 3707 MC 42-77 >Seattle, WA 98124-2207 >206-662-2304
Received on Saturday, 23 October 2004 16:53:35 UTC