Re: SpecGL implementation report, first version

Thanks Patrick,

I'll do this as well as other additions to enhance readability for the 
next version.

/Dimitris

On 25 Apr 2005, at 19:03, Patrick Curran wrote:

Looks good, Dimitris:

One small suggestion - the 'subheadings' that name the specs you're 
reviewing should link to the actual documents.

Thanks...

Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:

> QA WG,
>
> Here is the first version of the SpecGL implementation report.
>
> If you don't have the time to read through the entire document before  
> the teleconference, at least read the short Overview given immediately 
>  below.
>
> -- Start Overview --
> The new implementation report is very similar to the older one [1],  
> given that the Req's/GP's are fewer in the newer document (13/23 as  
> opposed to 13/25) and no radically new Req's/GP's have been added 
> (most  are reworded). Coherence has been checked between the two  
> implementation reports. Instead of listing the specifications in one  
> table, separate tables have been given for each specification checked.
> A new numbering scheme gives a clear overview of the Specifications  
> covered (SpecGL, Ruby, CSS 2.1, HTML 4.0.1, SISR, xml:id and SVG 1.1), 
>  following the ICS for SpecGL [2]. I suggest we use this as a 
> normative  format for SpecGL ICS, as it stays close to the document 
> outline and is  very easy to read.
> Some implementation reports, notably CSS, need to be further digested. 
>  Also, more specifications will be added (suggestions from QA WG  
> members).
> On a side note, some editorial remarks on SpecGL have been made,  
> inlined below.
> -- End Overview --
>
> The report covers all of the specifications in the previous  
> implementation report [1] as well as SpecGL itself, but except for  
> XInclude, where I've read the specs using the ICS that Dom sent out a  
> few days ago [2]. This table is used in the document itself, for each  
> specification covered. Content is a merge of Dom's SpecGL ICS, Tim's  
> CSS review [3], Karl's implementation report of xml:id [4], the SISR  
> Conformance assessment [5] and my own findings.
>
> If a WG member feels a particular specification should be reviewed,  
> please suggest say 2 more specs (however please bear in mind that this 
>  is heavy work; allow a couple of days for each spec). Also, editorial 
>  changes (links etc) are to be provided. Content should stay the same.
>
> Karl, Dom, I took the liberty of merging your stylesheets and do some  
> small changes in order to provide the correct background in the table  
> cells. Feel free to change as necessary to further enhance 
> readability.  You may, for example, want to make the cell widths 
> uniform.
>
> A few editorial remarks for SpecGL, Editor Draft 2005/04/21 [6]:
>
> TOC, entry for GP15, reads "... Practice 15:Use optional ...", should  
> read "... Practice 15: Use optional ..."
> 1.5.1, 2nd section, reads "... must ensures ...", should read "... 
> must  ensure ..."
> 2.2.3, 1st section, reads "... to clearly defines ...", should read  
> "... to clearly define ..."
> 2.3.1, "why care?" section, reads "... other natural languages ...",  
> should read "... other natural language ..."
> 2.4, 2nd section, reads "... will also benefits ...", should read "... 
>  will also benefit ..."
> 2.4.1, after Requirement 09, section "Why Care?", reads "... the  
> various combination ...", should read "... the various combinations  
> ..."
> 2.4.3, section "What does it mean?", reads "... are consistent.This  
> ...", should read "... are consistent. This ..."
> 2.4.4, section "What does it mean?", reads "... define the affect 
> ...",  should read "... define the effect ..."
> References - Informative references; WIKI-NORMATIVE-REF, reads "...  
> esw.w3.org ...", should read "... http://esw.w3.org ..."
>
> Feedback and comments welcome.
>
> Thanks and best,
>
> /Dimitris

Received on Monday, 25 April 2005 18:48:25 UTC