W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2009

Re: A few comments on Separation of Semantic and Presentational Markup...

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 23:26:03 -0500
To: Lorisch@aol.com
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF28A91FE5.D161C487-ON85257661.004FB1C2-85257662.00185CDD@lotus.com>
Thank you so much for taking the trouble to comment on the work of the 
TAG.   We do strive to produce documents that are well written, and I 
agree with many of your editorial suggestions regarding the document at 
[1].  Please note that this draft was written in 2003, and like most 
formal documents produced by the TAG, it has a status section [2]. Quoting 
from that:

"This is an early draft of this finding. It is very rough and has been 
reviewed by no-one. This draft has not been reviewed by other TAG members 
and does not represent the consensus position of the TAG.    This document 
has been developed for discussion by the W3C Technical Architecture 
Group."

Perhaps you are not aware that the TAG is chartered to do its work "in 
public", by which we mean that not only our final edited documents but 
also our earliest informal drafts are generally posted for public 
discussion.  Some editors attempt to refine their grammar, usage, and 
spelling early, while others do such refinement only after the substance 
of a document has begun to meet with approval.  The draft on which you are 
commenting is such an early experiment.  Althought I was not on the TAG at 
the time, I infer that the TAG decided not to pursue refinement of the 
draft to the point where it would become a formal TAG Finding.  Therefore, 
I do not expect that the TAG will be addressing the editorial shortcomings 
that you have identified in it.

>From time to time the TAG does undertake work on new Findings, and 
availability of drafts for review is announced on this list.  We would 
very much welcome your suggestions on either the editorial or substantive 
content of such drafts when they become available.  Thank you.

Noah
TAG co-chair

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26.html#status

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Lorisch@aol.com
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
10/20/2009 11:18 PM
 
        To:     www-tag@w3.org
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        A few comments on Separation of Semantic and 
Presentational Markup...


Here are a few tiny suggestions from an editor who also relishes reading 
about/learning Web technology and practices. In other words, my feedback 
is about grammatical, punctuation and typo type issues, not the substance 
of this evolving document. If nothing else, grammar, punctuation and 
sentence structure help to make even the most technical document readable. 
Here's the Web page link: 
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26.html. And, here goes 
my input
 
-- Under "What is the Problem" (section 1), I read this sentence ....
The actual problem seems to be that some content has made inappropriate 
design choices that limit restylability.
as saying that content is making design choices. It's the designer, 
developer, etc., who makes design choices about the content, not the 
content itself. 
 
--- In "Abstraction and Concreteness" (section 3), the last sentence 
repeats the word "should."
Secondly, should all information on the Web should be made available at as 
high a level of abstraction as possible to allow maximal opportunities for 
restyling?
-- In "The Value of Information" (section 5.1), this sentence was unclear 
to me:
Clearly, this is highly abstract and capable of analysis in various ways 
it is, in some sense, the most accessible information. 
I wonder if making two sentences would clarify. It would then read: 
Clearly, this is highly abstract and capable of analysis in various ways. 
It is, in some sense, the most accessible information.
There are a few other punctuation issues, but the one's I've mentioned 
seem the most important in 
terms of clarity. And the rest of the document is in draft form, so 
editing would be highly unnecessary at this point. 
 
On a personal note, although I'm not experienced enough to understand 
everything in this document, I did get and learn from a lot of it, 
particularly the "Inappropriate Separation" section ("separation" needs a 
capital "S," by the way). Making web builders aware that offering 
separately styled content for mobile phones and other platforms outside 
typical web browser presentation, is a wake-up call on the importance of 
accessibility for all web users. 
 
Section 5.1, "The Value of Information," seems particularly relevant to 
discussions governments, online industry representatives and businesses in 
general are having right now. Very timely.
 
Also, when I read section 5.3 "The Craft of Presentation," it reminded me 
of the work of Edward Tufte and other information graphics experts. I've 
learned a lot from them. 
 
I hope all of this isn't obnoxious. What W3C does is immeasurably 
important, and I read your site whenever I can. Thank you for that. I hope 
my tiny suggestions are useful.
 
Lori Stassi
Online and Print Editor, Web site developer/manager 
loriscg@aol.com
Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 04:26:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:31 UTC