RE: [office-comment] ZIP specification (Part 3, Draft 11)

["Alex Brown" <alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk>]

Dennis hi

Thanks for progressing this. Without the ZIP spec it's not possible to
review this document meaningfully. In particular I wanted to check that
the #1 conformance provision ("conform to the appnote") was not in
contradiction with other provisions in Part 3.

<snip/>

> 2. On the other hand, the only archived version of an authoritative
> PKWARE
> APPNOTE is version 6.2.0 of 2004-06-20.  This version has been
> preserved,
> <http://www.pkware.com/support/application-note-archives>, in order to
> provide an authoritative reference for a certain ECMA (and now
ISO/IEC)
> standard.  It would be interesting to see if this would suffice as a
> normative basis for application to ODF Packages.
> 
> Do you have any observations on what appears most suitable?

Ideally ZIP would be a standard. It's rather interesting that it isn't.
SC 34/WG 1 has made some efforts in this area but to no avail.

I suppose referencing the Ecma-referenced version would be a quick fix,
and certainly better than nothing. There would need to be a diff of any
differences between ODF 1.0/1.1's zip appnote and this appnote however.
I'm assuming that someone, somewhere has the "old" appnote text, and
that part of ODF has not forever vanished beyond our reach!

Incidentally, is Part 3 meant to enumerate differences from its previous
incarnation as a chapter of ODF 1.1? Or by splitting it out into a new
part is this requirement avoided?

- Alex.