Le 12 sept. 06 à 16:53, Shane McCarron a écrit :
1) While we appreciate that what you suggest might make reading
easier, the way
we do it is how W3C specs all do it as far as we know. We do agree
about
expanding the text, and will attempt to make that change over time.
No, All specifications don't do it like that.
An example
http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#about
And using a correct citation scheme is also recommended in the W3C
Manual of Style
7.2 Citation
http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#citation
2) We agree that semantic markup is a good thing. We do not have a
convention
for annotating specific document roles at this time. Thanks for
the comment.
Will the WG do for next version of the publication?
3) You suggest that we remove things that will not be relevant
after a few
years. We agree. If there are specific items, please let us know
what they
are.
1. Introduction
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-role-20060725/#s_intro
an example of what we call a factual fact.
[[[
Note that this work was originally done as part
of the [XHTML2] activity. It is being released
in a separate, stand-alone module in order to
speed its adoption and ease the migration to
XHTML 2 when that is released.
]]]
4) We will make a note somewhere that all examples are non-normative.
That will half solved the issue. How one's know that the prose is an
example or not in the text. The problem is that the prose often mixed
a requirement and an example in the same paragraph.
Please do separate examples from normative prose explicitly.
5) Agreed.
a grep should on the next version of the document should help to
catch the case issue.
And also help to add an appropriate markup
See for example
10. RFC 2119 Key Words
http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#RFC
6) Thanks. We will fix.
Thanks
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
