Hi Madison,
best wishes for a happy new year to you all at the RPC as well!
It took me a while to complete the full reread.
To the open questions:
(Question 6:) To my surprise, we didn’t find any particular candidates for
using `<aside>`.
(Question 21:) We wrote
>>>>>>>>> Generally, when the sourcecode construct is meant, we use the
>>>>>>>>> typewriter font; when the concept is meant (“an array of string
>>>>>>>>> values”…), we don’t, and we then use the English capitalization
>>>>>>>>> (“Boolean”).
My full re-read did not uncover instances where `<tt>` was or was not used
inappropriately; this is indeed hard to check.
(Question 23:) Again, the full re-read did not uncover any inappropriate
abbreviation expansion. (Again, hard to check. For future documents: Might
there be a way to mark these in the XML?)
Below are the remaining nits I found.
When those are addressed, I believe RFC 9880-to-be will be ready for
publication.
Grüße, Carsten
## Multiple Sections:
A number of tables in the specification define “qualities”: 1, 3, 4, 6 to 10.
For several of these tables, a “default” column was omitted because “None of
these qualities are required or have default values that are assumed if the
quality is absent”, so the column would have been uniformly “N/A”.
The intention was to add a sentence saying this to all introductions of those
tables leaving out the column, but not the ones with the column.
Clerical errors were made here:
• This sentence was added for Table 4. However, the “default” column is
present (as it is in Table 7 and Table 8), not elided, so this sentence is not
applicable (not true, actually) and needs to be removed.
• For Table 8, 9, and 10, this sentence was not added. For consistency, it
should be.
Resulting changes:
Section 4.7:
OLD:
These qualities include the common qualities, JSO-inspired qualities (see
below), and data
qualities defined specifically for the present specification; the latter are
shown in Table 4. None
of these qualities are required or have default values that are assumed if the
quality is absent.
NEW:
These qualities include the common qualities, JSO-inspired qualities (see
below), and data
qualities defined specifically for the present specification; the latter are
shown in Table 4.
Section 5.3:
OLD:
The qualities of an Action definition include the common qualities.
Additional qualities are shown in Table 8.
NEW:
The qualities of an Action definition include the common qualities.
Additional qualities are shown in Table 8.
None of these qualities are required or have default values that are assumed if
the quality is absent.
Section 5.4:
OLD:
The qualities of sdfEvent include the common qualities. Additional qualities
are shown in Table
9.
NEW:
The qualities of sdfEvent include the common qualities. Additional qualities
are shown in Table
9.
None of these qualities are required or have default values that are assumed if
the quality is absent.
Section 6.3:
OLD:
The qualities of sdfThing are shown in Table 10. Analogous to sdfObject, the
presence of one or
both of the optional qualities "minItems" and "maxItems" defines the sdfThing
as an array.
NEW:
The qualities of sdfThing are shown in Table 10. None of these qualities are
required or have default values that are assumed if the quality is absent.
Analogous to sdfObject, the presence of one or
both of the optional qualities "minItems" and "maxItems" defines the sdfThing
as an array.
## Capitalization:
Given Names: replace five remaining occurrences of given name with Given Name
Quality Names: replace one remaining occurrence of quality name with Quality
Name
## Ambiguous sentence: Section 1.2:
OLD:
A Grouping that contains Affordance declarations (Property, Action, and Event
declarations) only.
NEW:
A Grouping where the declarations that it contains are for Affordances only
(Property, Action, and Event declarations).
## Missing text: Section 2.2.1:
We missed out from actually giving the term “Thing Descriptions” for the WoT
case:
OLD:
W3C Web of Things [WoT]
NEW:
W3C Web of Things Thing Descriptions [WoT]
## No promises: Section 2.3.3:
Be more careful with handing out what could be seen as promises:
OLD:
an extension is planned
NEW:
an extension is foreseen
## Missing text: Section 4.2:
Describing figure 1, missing out on `toggle`
OLD: • https://example.com/capability/cap#/sdfObject/Switch/sdfAction/off
NEW:
• https://example.com/capability/cap#/sdfObject/Switch/sdfAction/off
• https://example.com/capability/cap#/sdfObject/Switch/sdfAction/toggle
## Punctuation: Section 6.3, first paragraph:
OLD:
for this example).
NEW:
for this example.)
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
