Chris Bizer wrote:
> Proposed changes:
>
> - The manual shouldn't require the browser to issue warnings if it is in a
> undecideable lens or format selection situation. I think the user isn't
> interested in these warnings but just wants the information rendered
> somehow. For this reason, classic web browsers also don't display warnings
> for CSS errors but just quietly ignore the CSS they don't understand.
Yes. I did not have the user in mind when I was considering warnings,
but more the Fresnel stylesheet programmer/debugger. There should be a
debug mode that warns about conflicts.
> Editorial Comments:
> - I think it would be good to move the last paragraph of section 1.2 about
> selector languages to section 1.3, as it isn't about Vocabulary Modules.
Or rename "Vocabulary modules" into "Modules".
> - Change the introduction of section 2.1 as the current text is only about
> instanceLensDomain and not general.
It would indeed be better to say something about classLensDomain. The
problem is that classLensDomain only makes sens in subsection "Simple
Selectors".
> - We are still having an inconsistency with the usage of the terms
> "resource" and instance. In section 1 subsection terminology we say that we
> take an ontological view using the terms Class/Instance/Property/Value. But
> in formatting vocabulary we are talking about "resourceFormat"
> "resourceStyle" and "ResourceBox". I guess we should decide on one term. Any
> preferences?
I vote for instance instead of resource.
> Edits to the document:
> - changed Fresnel:url into Fresnel:externalLink in section 1.1.
> - moved the examples about formatting properties from the introduction of
> secton 3 to section 3.1 about formatting properties.
> - I moved the section about Fresnel use from section 4 to the end of section
> 3.1 as it isn't about groups.
> - Moved the section about including CSS/SVG styling instructions into
> Fresnel stylesheets to section 6.4
ok
> I would also like to close all discussions about the core vocabulary today!
> We should all give our explicit OK and then move to a phase where we only
> correct bugs in the core vocabs but don't do any further major changes.
Agreed. We still need to close the stylesheetLink issue. Coming back to
this in the dedicated thread.
> What about the extended vocabs? Does this still need discussion or do we
> leave it like this for now? (Which would be OK for me)
I think we should leave them as is for now, start playing with Fresnel
"for real" and when we have enough experience come back to extended vocabs.
--
Emmanuel Pietriga
INRIA Futurs - Projet In Situ tel : +33 1 69 15 34 66
Bat 490, Université Paris-Sud fax : +33 1 69 15 65 86
91405 ORSAY Cedex FRANCE http://www.lri.fr/~pietriga
Received on Tue Jul 05 2005 - 12:52:35 EDT