- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:37:05 +0000
- To: www-qa@w3.org
Hi as promised my delayed editorial comments. As editorial comments, I am not expecting a formal treatment of these, nor am I intending to *argue* for them - some are typos etc, which I am sure the editors will accept; others are stylistic, and my comments are intended to help inform the editors and I will respect whatever decisions they make. I will try and put the larger comments (which tend to be stylistic) first, and then typos etc. I also number the comments (non-consecutively), which might help. Jeremy Document reviewed: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/ Larger comments: 010: Personally I would have preferred a more conventional numbering, with each section and subsection numbered, and the guidelines being say G1 G2 ... 020: 2.2 Requirement A: Examples I particularly like charmod with it's [C,I,S] labels on all requirements. I wonder whether this would fit as an additional example. 030: 2.3 Good Practice B URI examples ... I liked this because this is a very real problem, but felt that I was having to draw on too much of my geek expertise to interpret this section. e.g. knowing that 666.666.666.666 is not an IPv4 address, and that ~ and i-umlaut are not legal URI chars. Also the text below the example URIs and the URIs themselves could have been better connected, e.g. explicitly mentioning with the word "IPv6" that the second example URI illustrates this. A further weakness is that RFC2396 has just been updated (RFC3986) which helps a bit ... and the IRI issue is in RFC3987. 040: 3.2 Requirement A. Examples OWL might be a relevant example. The normative syntax and semantics are defined in OWL Semantic and Abstract Syntax in formal language; then in the OWL Test Cases document, the conformance statements are made with RFC keywords, linking back to the OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax. (There are other weakness with OWL though) 050: 4.2 Optionality, examples I particularly liked the XSL example 060: Section 5, story. One thing I like about the reworked QAF Spec GL is that almost all the stories are more concrete than in the earlier version where you avoided naming names. e.g. comment 050 above. I think this story, while clear, would be more compelling if you provided a link to the appropriate CR document ... and named the doc and the WG. Also, I think that learning from your mistakes is something to be proud of, rather than ashamed of. It is clear that this version has been adequately reviewed prior to LC. 070: 5 Good Practice C: Examples You overstate the OWL WG practice ... Suggest last sentence. "They even went a bit further by making a test case a necessary step in developing new features or modifying old features." We never had a comprehensive suite for all features. 080: Conformance section I put a big stylistic suiggle down the side of my print-out, feeling that this section needed to be formal, looking again, I see it is only the words "is very simple" that gave me a sense of informality here. That seems more like a judgement that the reader should make, not the authors. Suggest s/is very simple./is as follows./ Typos etc: 200: 1.1 Good Practice B: Techniques bullet point 1a s/products will/products that will/ 210: Figure 2 I printed this out on a black and white printer. The paler lines for the simple conformance were hard to make out on my print out. The picture could be improved by changing the colour scheme. 220: 1.2 Good Practice B: Techniques bullet point 5 Provide hyperlink for EARL 230: 2.1 Requirement A: Examples weakly suggest moving quote from CC/PP up to directly below bullet point concerning CC/PP immediately above "Could have been better" 240: 2.1 Good Practice B: Techniques 3rd main bullet s/compliment/complement/ 250: 2.3 first para, third sentence "Then it is essential" The "Then" is not grammatical. Suggest delete word leaving: "It is esssential" more extensive rewording could also be done, my preference is the single-word delete 260: 4.1 Subdivide Last sentence of first para reads badly. 'should' is problematic. Suggest: 'Choose subdivisions so that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.' 280: 4.4 Requirement B is not grammatical. Suggest "Define how each deprecated feature ..." 290: 4.4 Good Practice C: examples XML namespaces incorrect suggest "deprecation of relative IRI references" 300: 5. first bullet point in section "Benefit/Cost ... features" is not grammatical. Suggest: "analyze the costs and benefits of each individual feature." (note both verb changes, and change in number of object) 310: 5 Good Practice E I found the phrasing "define which from" awkward. I suggest "define whether prose or formal language has priority" 320: 5 Good practice E. Techniques, 2nd bullet "and one can't [be] modified" 330: Conformance/Normative Parts/first para suggest delete "as well as the labels, 'normative' and 'informative' within sections." It is untrue. 340: Conformance/Normative Parts suggest identifying the conformance section itself as normative 350: Acknowledgements s/Caroll/Carroll/ 360: References/OWL Test s/J De Roo, J.J. Carroll/J.J. Carroll, J De Roo/
Received on Monday, 31 January 2005 08:37:29 UTC