SET09103 Coursework Feedback
Part 1 basic features
Full points were given unless something did not work.
Part 1 advanced features
Full points were only given if the features were of some complexity and
Points were subtracted if the different elements (XML, Graphviz, attributes) were not
displayed on the same page (because that is more user-friendly and more
difficult to implement).
The security/Unicode support should also apply to the XML file.
Note: if the coursework had a high plagiarism score in Turnitin, marks for the
parts which seemed to contain copied materials were reduced.
1) Introduction: marked based on quality and quantity.
2) XML format: points were subtracted if
The DTD was missing (an XML Schema is not a DTD).
Syntax errors (because that meant you had not checked it with an XML editor).
There was no separate grouping of photo metadata and and frame elements
(because that makes the XML format more usable) or one of the two was missing
Header information was missing or the name of the DTD does not match the
Element names were misleading (for example, "svg" and "html"
already have meaning and should not be reused in a new XML format with a different
It was important to discuss the relevance for your tool.
The names and explanations of the security risks needed to be correct.
A common error was to say
that defacing can only occur if there are problems with the web server because
an image upload feature always poses a certain danger of defacing unless
security checks are applied.
A certain amount of detail was required (writing just half a sentence for
each risk was insufficient).
4) Critical evaluation: marked based on quality and quantity.
5) Web 2.0 discussion: marked based on quality and quantity. It was important
to state how the features relate to your tool. More points were given
if the features were more innovative compared to just using the features
which were part of the coursework part 1 anyway (XML, AJAX, SVG).
6) Formatting and style: professional quality was required for full points.
At least two points were subtracted if the report did not appear to
have been run through a spell checker.