Minor editorial items in Architecture document (Part 1)

Minor editorial items:

1. When I print the current Architecture document on my favorite black
and white print, the "Principle" and "Good Practise" titles are not
opaque and the line of the underlying box strikes through the words and
makes them very difficult to read.  I am not sure how to fix this
problem.

2. In the Acknowledgement section change the reference to me to "Paul
Cotton (Microsoft Corporation)".

3. I would prefer that the Acknowledgment section did not refer to Tim
Berners-Lee as "(Chair, W3C)" since the TAG has a co-chair which should
be acknowledged.

4. In general I think the Acknowledgment section needs to be written so
it is easily adjusted if this document is not finished before we have at
least one new TAG member.  For example, the sentence could be reworded
"This document was authored by the W3C Technical Architecture Group
which included the following participants:".

5. W3CPROCESS Reference 
"W3C Process Document", 19 July 2001 Version. Available at
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/.

This reference needs to be updated to point to the most recent Process
document but I will point out that it is NOT referenced in the text and
can be simply deleted.

6. Unreferenced entries in 7.3 Non-Normative References
There are several references in this section (e.g. "Axioms", CSS2,
Eng90, Fragments, HTML40, etc.) that are NOT referenced from the body of
the current WD.  I prefer if there were usages of each reference to give
a clear context or rationale of their importance but I am willing to
have a section called "Background References" for references that do not
meet this criteria as long as the section includes a paragraph to
indicate why the references are listed.

BTW if there are other unreferenced references in Section 7.1 or Section
7.2 they could also be removed.

7. Normative vs Architectural Specifications
I do not understand the split between refences in Section 7.1 "Normative
References" and Section 7.2 "Architectural Specifications".  If all of
the references in 7.2 are normative then I believe they should all be in
Section 7.1.  If the references in 7.2 are not normative then they
should all be in Section 7.3.

8. Missing period in Reference
There is a period "." missing after the URL in the QA reference in
Section 7.2.

9. RDDL reference date
I think the latest version of the current RDDL proposal is later than
"14 February 2003".  Please check to get the latest version.


/paulc 

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com

Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2003 02:21:34 UTC