- From: <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 05:56:15 -0000
- To: www-style@w3.org
Hi, This is a QA Review comment for "CSS Module: Namespaces" http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-css3-namespace-20060828/ 2006-08-28 2nd WD About http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-css3-namespace-20060828/ There are details to fix here and there. - Check consistency in the way the references are given - Check for the clarity of each assertions - Make it obvious when it's normative and when it's informative. - Fix the references to specifications, last versions, different versions # This specification, This document, etc. to start a sentence [[[ This specification defines the syntax for using namespaces in CSS. ]]] Avoid using "this specification", but talk directly about the technology, it is always lighter for the reader. For example, "CSS Module: Namespaces" defines the syntax for using XML namespaces in CSS. …" # References [[[ The terminology used in this specification is that of [XML-NAMES11]. ]]] Check references in the document and write proper English sentences. For example, the previous sentence could be written. "CSS Module: Namespaces" uses the terminology defined in "Namespaces in XML 1.1". [XML-NAMES11]. # explicitly marked as non-normative It is said that "All of the text of this specification is normative except examples, notes, and sections explicitly marked as non-normative." Then the first example is noy declared as non-normative *explicitly*. Rephrase the sentence to make clear how the document is organized. For example "All text labeled Example is informative." # typo? "There is no default default namespace:" twice default? -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/ *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 5 September 2006 05:56:56 UTC