A few comments on Separation of Semantic and Presentational Markup...

[Lorisch]

Here are a few tiny suggestions from an editor who also relishes reading about/learning Web technology and practices. In other words, my feedback is about grammatical, punctuation and typo type issues, not the substance of this evolving document. If nothing else, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure help to make even the most technical document readable. Here's the Web page link: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26.html. And, here goes my input

 

-- Under "What is the Problem" (section 1), I read this sentence ....

The actual problem seems to be that some content has made inappropriate design choices that limit restylability.

as saying that content is making design choices. It's the designer, developer, etc., who makes design choices about the content, not the content itself.

 

--- In "Abstraction and Concreteness" (section 3), the last sentence repeats the word "should."

Secondly, should all information on the Web should be made available at as high a level of abstraction as possible to allow maximal opportunities for restyling?

-- In "The Value of Information" (section 5.1), this sentence was unclear to me:

Clearly, this is highly abstract and capable of analysis in various ways it is, in some sense, the most accessible information.

I wonder if making two sentences would clarify. It would then read:

Clearly, this is highly abstract and capable of analysis in various ways. It is, in some sense, the most accessible information.

There are a few other punctuation issues, but the one's I've mentioned seem the most important in

terms of clarity. And the rest of the document is in draft form, so editing would be highly unnecessary at this point.

 

On a personal note, although I'm not experienced enough to understand everything in this document, I did get and learn from a lot of it, particularly the "Inappropriate Separation" section ("separation" needs a capital "S," by the way). Making web builders aware that offering separately styled content for mobile phones and other platforms outside typical web browser presentation, is a wake-up call on the importance of accessibility for all web users. 

 

Section 5.1, "The Value of Information," seems particularly relevant to discussions governments, online industry representatives and businesses in general are having right now. Very timely.

 

Also, when I read section 5.3 "The Craft of Presentation," it reminded me of the work of Edward Tufte and other information graphics experts. I've learned a lot from them.

 

I hope all of this isn't obnoxious. What W3C does is immeasurably important, and I read your site whenever I can. Thank you for that. I hope my tiny suggestions are useful.

 

Lori Stassi

Online and Print Editor, Web site developer/manager

loriscg@...

[noah_mendelsohn]

Thank you so much for taking the trouble to comment on the work of the
TAG.   We do strive to produce documents that are well written, and I
agree with many of your editorial suggestions regarding the document at
[1].  Please note that this draft was written in 2003, and like most
formal documents produced by the TAG, it has a status section [2]. Quoting
from that:

"This is an early draft of this finding. It is very rough and has been
reviewed by no-one. This draft has not been reviewed by other TAG members
and does not represent the consensus position of the TAG.    This document
has been developed for discussion by the W3C Technical Architecture
Group."

Perhaps you are not aware that the TAG is chartered to do its work "in
public", by which we mean that not only our final edited documents but
also our earliest informal drafts are generally posted for public
discussion.  Some editors attempt to refine their grammar, usage, and
spelling early, while others do such refinement only after the substance
of a document has begun to meet with approval.  The draft on which you are
commenting is such an early experiment.  Althought I was not on the TAG at
the time, I infer that the TAG decided not to pursue refinement of the
draft to the point where it would become a formal TAG Finding.  Therefore,
I do not expect that the TAG will be addressing the editorial shortcomings
that you have identified in it.

>From time to time the TAG does undertake work on new Findings, and
availability of drafts for review is announced on this list.  We would
very much welcome your suggestions on either the editorial or substantive
content of such drafts when they become available.  Thank you.

Noah
TAG co-chair

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26.html#status

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Lorisch@...
Sent by: www-tag-request@...
10/20/2009 11:18 PM
 
        To:     www-tag@...
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        A few comments on Separation of Semantic and
Presentational Markup...


Here are a few tiny suggestions from an editor who also relishes reading
about/learning Web technology and practices. In other words, my feedback
is about grammatical, punctuation and typo type issues, not the substance
of this evolving document. If nothing else, grammar, punctuation and
sentence structure help to make even the most technical document readable.
Here's the Web page link:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26.html. And, here goes
my input
 
-- Under "What is the Problem" (section 1), I read this sentence ....
The actual problem seems to be that some content has made inappropriate
design choices that limit restylability.
as saying that content is making design choices. It's the designer,
developer, etc., who makes design choices about the content, not the
content itself.
 
--- In "Abstraction and Concreteness" (section 3), the last sentence
repeats the word "should."
Secondly, should all information on the Web should be made available at as
high a level of abstraction as possible to allow maximal opportunities for
restyling?
-- In "The Value of Information" (section 5.1), this sentence was unclear
to me:
Clearly, this is highly abstract and capable of analysis in various ways
it is, in some sense, the most accessible information.
I wonder if making two sentences would clarify. It would then read:
Clearly, this is highly abstract and capable of analysis in various ways.
It is, in some sense, the most accessible information.
There are a few other punctuation issues, but the one's I've mentioned
seem the most important in
terms of clarity. And the rest of the document is in draft form, so
editing would be highly unnecessary at this point.
 
On a personal note, although I'm not experienced enough to understand
everything in this document, I did get and learn from a lot of it,
particularly the "Inappropriate Separation" section ("separation" needs a
capital "S," by the way). Making web builders aware that offering
separately styled content for mobile phones and other platforms outside
typical web browser presentation, is a wake-up call on the importance of
accessibility for all web users.
 
Section 5.1, "The Value of Information," seems particularly relevant to
discussions governments, online industry representatives and businesses in
general are having right now. Very timely.
 
Also, when I read section 5.3 "The Craft of Presentation," it reminded me
of the work of Edward Tufte and other information graphics experts. I've
learned a lot from them.
 
I hope all of this isn't obnoxious. What W3C does is immeasurably
important, and I read your site whenever I can. Thank you for that. I hope
my tiny suggestions are useful.
 
Lori Stassi
Online and Print Editor, Web site developer/manager
loriscg@...