QA-Review - XML Infoset - CR to PR

Introduction

This document is a QA review of the XML Infoset Recommendation - The version which had been reviewed is http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-xml-infoset-20010514. As the XML Core Working Group invites comments on the specification. Comments should be sent to www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org; An archive is available to the public at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-infoset-comments/.

Remarks are not ordered following the importance or the priority. The review is done following a linear method. The remarks has been grouped by topics.

Wording

Brackets [] and property names

We can read in the XML Infoset Candidate Recommendation, the following paragraph:

... This is in accordance with the decision of the W3C XML Plenary Interest Group described in [Relative Namespace URI References]. Thus the value of a [namespace name] property is always an absolute URI with an optional fragment identifier.

We need clarification on the meaning of brackets used in the XML Infoset document. It's written that:

In this specification, the property names are shown in square brackets, [thus].

If we're right, why sometimes the property names (information in brackets) is linked and sometines not.

Document information item

There is exactly one document information item in the information set

could be replaced by:

There is one and only one document information item in the information set

Should you precise in 2.1.2, that the value of the document element property is the root element of the document information items.

Element information items

You have used the word tree despite of the fact it has been said in the begining of the recommendation that:

The terms "information set" and "information item" are similar in meaning to the generic terms "tree" and "node", as they are used in computing. However, the latter terms were avoided in this specification to reduce possible confusion with other specific data models.

Translation

Difficulties are inherent to translation in a different languages. There are no specific solutions. Something like The element information item will be very difficult to translate in french, for example, because item will be translated as élément as well as element in élément. It's still an open issue.

Markup

The markup is nice and very clean. Congratulations.

Table of contents

In the table of contents, it could be better to use the <li> in an ordered list.

Anchors and sections

A part of the semantic of anchors are lost because there are misplaced or the markup is not adequate. For example, in this version of the recommendation, you can read in the source code:

<a name="intro"/><div>
<h2>1. Introduction </h2>
<p>This specification...

It would be better to write, for instance:

<div>
<h2 id="intro">1. Introduction </h2>
<p>This specification...

or like that

<div>
<h2><a name="intro">1. Introduction </a></h2>
<p>This specification...

blockquote abuse

In the section 2, <blockquote> has been used to indent the content and not to quote text as said in HTML 4.01

These two elements designate quoted text. BLOCKQUOTE is for long quotations (block-level content) and Q is intended for short quotations (inline content) that don't require paragraph breaks.