Is the W3C style sheet used the
correct one (wrt the status)?
yesno
. The W3C style sheet shoud be
http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C- (whereas it is currently
)
Is there a <div class="head">
section?:
yesno, many other structural
tests depends on the presence of this and won't be
done due to its absence.
Is the W3C Logo correct?
yesno: The errors are:
no, logo not found in <div class='head'>
Is there the appropriate Submission logo?
yesno, check the markup used with the one required
yesno, check the markup used with the one required
Something is wrong, the type of submissions could not be determined (Team or Member?)
Are the title in <title> and
<h1> the same?
yesno
:
different from
Is the dated status subtitle
correct?
yes ()
no: no h2 heading beginning with
'W3C ' found in the head div or failed to parse it
Is there a link to the errata and the translations after the authors and before the copyright?
yes
link to translations not found
link to the errata not found
Are there errors in the copyright:
Note that "software licensing" must not be mentioned anymore in the copyright (See Pubrules section 7.10)
no
: <p class="copyright"> not found in
<div class="head">
No other errors found
Is there a <hr/> after the
copyright?
yesNo
Is there a link to the W3C document notice?
yesNo
Versions links
"Latest version" link
not found
"This version" link
not found.
The previous versiondoesn't seem to match with the current latest version (ETags differs).
The shortnames are different in the previous version URI and in the latest version URI.check that the new shortname got director's approval
"Previous version" link not found
OK, returns 404. Check that the doc got Director's approval
Something seems wrong, exists.
Is there an Editor or Author
section in the head of the document?
yes ()no (no <dt> elements begining by
'Author' or 'Editor' found)
If there is an abstract, is it
marked up by <h2> and is it at the right location (just after the hr)?
yesno, not at the right location
No, check that if there
is an abstract, its title is in a h2 tag.
Is there a status of the document
and is it correctly marked up?
yesno
: SOTD not found (note that some tests relying on the SOTD won't be done because of this)
Is it at the right place in the document (i.e. after the head and the abstract if there is one)?
yesno
Does the status section contain the standard boilerplate?
yesno (the SOTD must contain the following boilerplate: By publishing this document, W3C acknowledges that [Submitting Members] have made a formal submission to W3C for discussion. Publication of this document by W3C indicates no endorsement of its content by W3C, nor that W3C has, is, or will be allocating any resources to the issues addressed by it. This document is not the product of a chartered W3C group, but is published as potential input to the <a href="/Consortium/Process">W3C Process</a>. Publication of acknowledged Member Submissions at the W3C site is one of the benefits of <a href="/Consortium/Prospectus/Joining">W3C Membership</a>. Please consult the requirements associated with Member Submissions of <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20030520.html#sec-submissions">section 3.3 of the W3C Patent Policy</a>. Please consult the complete <a href="/Submission">list of acknowledged W3C Member Submissions</a>.
Does the status section contain the standard boilerplate?
yesno (the SOTD must contain the following boilerplate: Publication as a does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.no (the SOTD must contain the following markup: <p><em>This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/">W3C technical reports index</a> at http://www.w3.org/TR/.</em></p>
Does the status section contain a link
to the TR page (or the appropriate Submissions page)?
yesno (not found)
Does the status section contain a link to an interoperability or implementation report?
candidate(s) found: no candidate found (looking for links containing the word 'implementation' or 'interoperability', ignore if you're using other terms)
Does the status section contain a link to an archived mailing list for feedback?
yes (, but the email address looks bogus) no link found to archivesno (no mailto: link found)
Is there a link to the Activity home page or the Activity statement in the status of the document?
yes ()
no, no link to an Activity information page found.
Is there a link to the Working Group home page in the status of the document?
yes ()
no, no link to a Working Group page found.
Is there an indication that this is a First Public Working Draft?
yesno, The expression "First Public Working Draft" was not found in the status section.
Does the status section include call for exclusions?
yesNo candidate found (see related Pubrules section 1.3.1 point 2) (Note that the checker is searching for the following uri: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion)
Is there an email feedback link for the AC Reps to a team only mailing for PR Review?
2 email addresses found in the status section. Check that one of is a team only mailing listno, only one email address has been found in the status section. There must be at least two of them.
Is there a date for the end of the PER review?
yes ()
no, no date found in the format DD Month YYYY in the SOTD
Is there a deadline for feedback in the SOTD?
yes ()
no, no date found in the format DD Month YYYY in the SOTD (Note that the checker believes this is a Last Call WD (because "last call" appears somewhere in the SOTD; if it is mistaken, ignore this message)
Is there information about under which patent policy the document was produced?
yes (This doc was produced under the CPP)
yes (This doc was produced under the 5 February 2004 W3C patent Policy)
No candidate found, (Note that the checker is searching for either the expressions "W3C Patent Policy" & "5 February 2004" or a link to the Patent Policy Transition Procedure for the document under the CPP: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/05-pp-transition; this doesn't apply if the document is produced by a PP Group and not expected to become a Recommendation
Is the patent policy information consistent with information in IPP?
Document produced by more than 1 group, check manuallyyes (the group is in IPP, and lists this spec as a Patent Policy spec)
probably OK (group in IPP, and this spec is a FPWD)
something seems wrong (the group is not in IPP, or is in IPP but doesn't list this spec as PP)
looks OK (group in IPP, lists the spec as CPP)
something seems wrong (the group is in IPP, and doesn't refer to this spec as CPP)
Can't tell, probably OK but check manuallySomething is wrong, IPP knows about this spec, but this spec doesn't refer to any patent policy
Can't tell, check manually
Does the status section contain a link to patents disclosures?
yeshttp://www.w3.orgprivate
()
, but this page has a restricted accessNo candidate found (this doesn't apply if the document is produced in a PP group and not expected to become a Recommendation) (Suggestion: use a link with rel="disclosure"; this is not mandatory, just recommended for pubrules checking ease)
List of heading without id:
heading without id
found:
No other heading without ids found
Is the document HTML valid?
Is the document CSS valid?
Is there no relative link using "../"?
no; it will be broken at publication timeyes
Collect your document metadata and attach
it to your publication request.
Points which still need human check, but where I can
help
Do all the images have a meaningful alternative text?
img:
-> alt:
[this alt attribute is empty; this is only valid if the image doesn't bear any meaning]
Points which still need to be checked by some other
way
Has the document publication been approved by the Director (needed even for minor revision of any submissions)?
Is the Status of the Document section correct?
The status section must contain a customized paragraph that has not been copied from another document. This section should include the title page date of the document and the publication date.
the status section must explain why W3C has published them (result of ack'd Member Submission; decision to publish Team Submission), that these are not W3C Recommendation track documents, and that publication does not imply endorsement by W3C, and that publication does not imply that any further action will be taken by W3C.
is there a link to changes since the previous transition (e.g., a list of changes or a diff document or both)?
is there a link to a list of changes that may affect conformance?
Does their images have appropriate alternative
textes?
Is the W3C style sheet the last called and the good
one?
Are they HTML and CSS valid?
Are they using valid www.w3.org URIs?
Check another document
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux
Produced by $Id: pubrules-checker.xml,v 1.420 2005/08/23 07:19:31 dom Exp $
no: style element detected after the
W3C style sheetyesno: last style sheet called is
, expecting one matching http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-status
No mention of the year of the document
()
in the copyright ()[check they
match]
Empty copyright?
Incorrect text: "" should be ""
.
Could not find attribute in
Attribute
in has the incorrect value
(should be
Is the "
" link correct?
yesno( different from
)yesno, several links in the "this version" link. Only one is admitted (alternative formats must be as described in pubrules 7.8)
no, the date of the document
() and the one of
the URI () doesn't
match (or the status subtitle is not in the expected format
W3C Status [D]D Month YYYY)no
(the link
doesn't start with
doesn't contain )noThe short status () doesn't match the long one (), or the "this version" link is not well formatted (a la http://www.w3.org/TR/YYYY/status-shortname-YYYYMMDD)yesyesyesyesyesyes, , ,