Review of June 23 webarch draft

I think the issues below can all be classed as editorial, so I guess I'm 
  OK with publishing even if these are not resolved:

Status of: The para beginning "The primary changess in this draft are.." 
should probably go since it describes inter-editor's-draft changes, and 
will not be accurate for people who (presumably) haven't seen this since 
the last TR draft.

Whole doc: will the "Editor's note:" thingies in pink be removed pre-pub?

Seciton 1.1.1 has the wrong title

2. Identification.  Recommend losing the second sentence of 1st para, 
beginning "The Web relies", it's a little fluffy and I don't think 
really adds much.

2. 2nd para: lose "geometrically"; I'm not sure whether we really mean 
geometrically or exponentially or whatever, just say grows "as a 
function of".

2. last para, phrase "have arisen naturally" is not quite what you mean, 
how about "were not predicted."

2.2 2nd para 1st sentece is awkward, how about "Each URI scheme has a 
specification which..."

2nd para again, I think instead of "suggests" you mean "may specify"

2.2, in the middle somewhere, "since a huge range of deployed software" 
should maybe be a "since a huge amount of deployed software", it's 
really the amount as much as the range that incurs the cost.

2.3 I'm generally uncomfortable with this whole section because, as a 
programmer, I can't figure out what this thing is trying to tell me to 
do or not do, and if a seciton in here has no consequences on the 
actions of programmers it should come out.  Also I don't remember any 
discussion on which this is based. But for the moment I can live with 
leaving it in.

2.4 1st para, need a comma after "secondary resource", I mis-parsed the 
sentence the first time I read it.

2.4 1st para last sentence, sentence is misleading, the meaning of the 
secondary resource is determined by the media-type, the specifications 
governing the representation format, by a bunch of things.  Also what 
are the consequences of this on the actions of programmers?  Please just 
lose this sentence.

2.4 3rd para.  I *hate* this sentence and I can't understand it.  The 
statement of fact in the second sentence is important and useful and 
this splodge of words just gets in the way.  I still think you're trying 
somehow to justify the "therefore" in the second sentence, it would be 
infinitely better to just *amputate* the "therefore".

2.4 "fragments refer to the subject of RDF description" grammar problem, 
either you mean rdf:description, or plural descriptions or something.

2.4 oaxaca#t34, don't like the example, I can't imagine seeing that, how 
asbout oaxaca#pop to look up the probability of precipitation or 
oaxaca#tomorrow to look up tomorrow's weather or something.

2.6 bullet point "inconsistent use of an XML namespace URI", I have *no* 
idea what you're talking about, either explain what you mean or 
(preferably) remove.

3.2 title is awkward, how bout "Characteristics of formats and their 

3.2 bullet point "If you use Qualified Names" is grammatically 
inconsistent with the rest of the bullet points which all begin the same 

3.2.1 The second and third <dt>'s (Author Needs/User Needs) have not 
been subject to any TAG discussion (or did I miss it?) and read like 
motherhood-and-apple-pie stuff.  If I'm right and htey haven't been 
discussed I strongly request losing them.  I'm also queasy about 
"Information Hiding", I think it belongs somewhere else in the spec, but 
given that it does belong in the spec I'm OK with leavving it here for 
the moment.

3.2.4  1st sentence awkward, how bout "its ability to embed cross 
references (hyperlinks)."

3.2.4 5th para, "some portion of its content".  You mean the 
*representations's* content, not the resource's.

4.1 and 4.2.  I'd lose 'em.

Cheers, Tim Bray
         (ongoing fragmented essay:

Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 19:54:01 UTC