ODF 1.2 Part 3 - Alternative IRI identifiers Conformance Inconsistency

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

This comment applies to ODF 1.2 Part 3,

Sections 2.2.1(E)/2.2.2(G) on the difference between conformant documents and extended conformant documents

Section 4.8.1 manifest:algorithm-name 4th list item,
Section 4.8.3, manifest:checksum-type, last list item,
Section 4.8.6, manifest:start-key-generation-name, last list item,
Section 4.8.9, manifest:key-derivation-name, last list item.

THE INCONSISTENCY

In Section 2.2.1(E)/2.2.2(G), the only difference identified for extended conformant documents is the presence of additional META-INF/ components other than the manifest and digital-signature files.

In the section 4.8 definitions referenced above, the IRI values of the four attributes are defined to include alternative algorithm identifications.  There is an explicit statement that those alternative identifications are only permitted in extended conformant packages.

Furthermore, there is no indication whether the alternative identifications, if present, are implementation-defined or not.


SUGGESTIONS

Modify Section 2.2.2(E) to read

   E) It shall not contain other files whose relative path begins with "META-INF" other than those listed in B) and D), nor shall the META-INF/manifest.xml contain any implementation-defined IRIs as alternative identifications. 

In the lists sections 4.8.1, 4.8.3, 4.8.6, and 4.8.9, change "The IRI of an alternative ..." to "The implementation-defined IRI of an alternative ... ."

In section 1.2 of Part 3, on Terminology, add the paragraph (from exact wording in Part 1),

"Implementation-defined is used in this standard for values or processing that may differ between ODF implementations, but is required to be specified by the implementor for each particular ODF implementation."


 -- Dennis E. Hamilton
    dennis.hamilton@acm.org    +1-206-779-9430
    https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A