- From: <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 05:56:15 -0000
- To: www-style@w3.org
Hi,
This is a QA Review comment for "CSS Module: Namespaces"
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-css3-namespace-20060828/
2006-08-28
2nd WD
About http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-css3-namespace-20060828/
There are details to fix here and there.
- Check consistency in the way the references are given
- Check for the clarity of each assertions
- Make it obvious when it's normative and when it's informative.
- Fix the references to specifications, last versions, different versions
# This specification, This document, etc. to start a sentence
[[[
This specification defines the syntax for using namespaces in CSS.
]]]
Avoid using "this specification", but talk directly about the technology, it is always lighter for the reader. For example,
"CSS Module: Namespaces" defines the syntax for using
XML namespaces in CSS. …"
# References
[[[
The terminology used in this specification is that of [XML-NAMES11].
]]]
Check references in the document and write proper English sentences. For example, the previous sentence could be written.
"CSS Module: Namespaces" uses the terminology defined in "Namespaces in XML 1.1". [XML-NAMES11].
# explicitly marked as non-normative
It is said that "All of the text of this specification is normative except examples, notes, and sections explicitly marked as non-normative." Then the first example is noy declared as non-normative *explicitly*. Rephrase the sentence to make clear how the document is organized. For example "All text labeled Example is informative."
# typo?
"There is no default default namespace:" twice default?
--
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 ***
Received on Tuesday, 5 September 2006 05:56:56 UTC