http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-emma-20050916/
| ID | Location | Comment | Mail thread | Accepted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | General and sec. 4.2.5: Reference to RFC 1738 |
RFC 1738 is obsoleted by RFC 3986 (URI Generic Syntax). It would be good if you could refer to RFC 3986 instead of 1738. The best thing would be if you could add a normative reference to RFC 3987 (Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs). |
- | - |
| 2 | General: Reference to RFC1766 |
RFC 1766 is obsoleted by 3066 (Tags for the Identification of Languages). What is essential here is the reference to a BCP (best common practice), which is for language identification BCP 47. Currenlty bcp 47 is represented by RFC 3066, so could you change the reference to "IETF BCP 47, currently represented by RFC 3066"? | - | - |
| 3 | General and sec. 2.4.1: References to XML and XMLNS |
As for XML, you reference version 1.0. As for XMLNS, you reference version 1.1. Is there a reason for the mismatch of the versions? | - | - |
| 4 | Sec. 1.2, definition of "URI: Uniform Resource Identifier" |
Here you refer to XML Schema for URIs. It would be good if you could also refer to the underlying RFCs (see comment 1). | - | - |
| 5 | Sec. 2.2 or sec. 4.1.5 and other places |
On terminology: Please reference standards like XForms RELAX-NG, SIP, TCP, SOAP, HTTP, SMTP, MRCP etc. if you mention them. | - | - |
| 6 | Sec. 2.2 |
Your list of data models is a little bit confusing. A proposal: List the DOM, the infoset and the XPath 2.0 data model. | - | - |
| 7 | Sec. 2.3 |
On terminology: "An EMMA attribute is prefixed ..." should be "An EMMA attribute is prefixed (qualifed) ...". Also: "An EMMA attribute is not prefixed ..." should be "An EMMA attribute is not prefixed (unqualified) ..." | - | - |
| 8 | General: expressing requirement levels |
Have you thought of using RFC 2119 to indicate requirements levels (e.g. with "must", "should", "must not" etc.)? | - | - |
| 9 | Sec. 4.2.15 on references to a grammar |
You identify a grammar by an URI. It might also be useful to be able to say "just a french grammar", without specifying which one. That is, to have a mechanism to specify the relations like general vs specific between grammars. | - | - |
| 10 | Reference to RFC 3023 (MIME media types), e.g. in appendix B.1 |
Work is undertaken for a successor of RFC 3023. To be able to take its changes into account, it would be good if you could change the reference to RFC 3023 to "RFC 3023 or its successor." Please have a look at How to Register an Internet Media Type for a W3C Specification. | - | - |
| 11 | Reference to RFC 3023 in appendix B.1, on security considerations |
Please refer to the security considerations mentioned in RFC 3987. | - | - |
| 12 | General |
It would be good if you could make a clearer difference between normative and non-normative parts of the specification | - | - |
| 13 | Sec. 4.2.1 on tokens |
Is it possible to apply the emma:language annotation also to tokens? | - | - |
Version: $Id: emma-review.html,v 1.4 2005/10/25 16:07:43 fsasaki Exp $