- From: Mario Jeckle <mario@jeckle.de>
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 07:38:08 +0200
- To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Please find my personal comments to the LC WebArch doc. All are concentrated on section 4 solely. The order of the techniques mentioned in brackets in the first sentence of section 4 should be changed to "XHTML, RDF/XML, XMIL, XLink, CSS, and PNG" to be consistent with the following section. After the first paragraph of section 4 insertion of an additional comment recommending the re-use of at least the meta-format (such as XML) is helpful even if a concrete instance format (e.g, myFunnyML) is not possible or intended. The sentence "textual formats also have the considerable advantage that they can be directly read and understood by human beings" should be formulated more restrictive. Proposed addition: "? can be understood if sufficient knowledge about the underlying semantics is present or available". Proposed addition the good practice "Link mechanisms": "Re-use existing hyperlink mechanisms, instead of inventing new ones". In section 4.5.2 it reads "XLink is an appropriate specification for representing links in hypertext XML applications" (which is absolutely true form my point of view). But, doesn't this possibly conflict with the HLink stuff done by the (X)HTML WG? Section 4.5.3 sketches the "p" element as an example of a XML element which is "defined in two or more XML formats". Who did we not refer to the "set" element which is already present in both MathML and SVG? This would make the statement more precise and also give a useful example. Below the good practice "Namespace adoption" there is the term "fully qualified" introduced. Why isn't "qualified" sufficient here also? In section 4.5.4 there is a bullet-point list collecting reasons for provide information about a namespace. Should we add "wish to retrieve the namespace policy" here? Section 4.5.5 is named "QNames in XML". But, unfortunately the document does not synonymies the expansion "qualified name" with the acronym. Sect. 4.5.6: It could be helpful to expand "ID" to "unique identification" the first time it is being used. Sect. 4.5.6 a type named "xs:ID" is used there. Should this not read "ID within the namespace assigned to XML Schema" here? Best, Mario -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFAjKA946tt20EwGqwRAmx3AJwIGo5kYYk+D0krADCTJNTSCdGU/wCfUBaQ l3V0JXVi06lbl93JYlo5Bqs= =VjyE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 26 April 2004 01:38:47 UTC