[OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (OFFICE-2313) Public Comment:Comments from Jacques D. on ODF Part3: Packages

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-2313?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18614#action_18614 ] 

Michael Brauer commented on OFFICE-2313:
----------------------------------------

Re 1 (gray boxes): The problem with the gray boxes is that there may be constrains in the usage of attributes or child elements that cannot be expressed by the prose in the gray boxes. For instance attributes or child elements may be optional or mandatory. Some child elements may occur multiple times or must appear in a particular order. Some attributes or child elements must appear together with others, and so on. By explicitly stating that they are non normative, we avoid running into any kind of conflict with the schema.

Re 2: typo. Should be corrected.

Re 3: typo. "File" should of cause read "Files". Whether the suggested language is something I can't say since I'm not a native English speaker.

Re 4: Section 5 defined OWL properties and classes. These syntactically look like attribute names, but these are not. That is whay there are no gray boxes.

Re 5 labeling: "P" stands for "Package". The "D" for "document. This has been taken over from part 1. We may remove the "D" actually, but since these are just labels, I'm not sure that this is really essential. In any case, I think it is not required to explain in the specification where the labels come from.


> Public Comment: Comments from Jacques D. on ODF Part3: Packages
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OFFICE-2313
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-2313
>             Project: OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Packaging
>    Affects Versions: ODF 1.2 Part 3 CD 1
>            Reporter: Robert Weir 
>
> Copied from office-comment list
> Original author: "Jacques R. Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> 
> Original date: 13 Jan 2010 20:12:36 -0000
> Original URL: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/201001/msg00007.html
> This is a copy of the comment:
> 1-Introduction:
> - I would not characterize the gray boxes as "non-normative", since they
> often re-state or re-word normative material they cross-reference.
> That could be confusing to readers.
> Instead, why not introduce them as "mark-up reminders" or "mark-up user notes"
>  
> 2- Editorial:  Section 2.7
> Update:
> "then the relative IRI shall interpreted as a package file entry reference."
> as:
> "then the relative IRI shall be interpreted as a package file entry reference."
>  
> 3- Editorial: Section 2.7
> Update:
> "Note: File whose relative path starts with "META-INF/ are..."
> as:
> "Note: Files the relative path of which starts with "META-INF/ are..."
>  
> 4- Section 5: it looks like at the end of each subsection, a gray box
> should wrap up almost every last sentence.
>  
> 5- Conformance Clause:
> - correctly identifies the Conformance targets (packages, producer, consumer)
> - unclear meaning of the labeling "PD1", "PD1.1", etc.
> - general comment: many COnf clause statements appear to just be repeats
> of what the normative specification already says, e.g:
> (PD1.1) It shall be a ZIP file, as defined by [ZIP].
> This is already made clear in Section 2.1 which says: "This package is a Zip file [ZIP]",
> (which probably should be reworded more formally as "An ODF package shall be a Zip file [ZIP]")
> Everything under PD1.2 should not need be restated in the conformance clause and should belong
> to the main spec body. Instead, the conf clause should make meta-level statements about which
> sections in the specification the "ODF package" is particularly concerned with, and must adhere to.
> (see conformance guidelines http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html).
> - the conf clause may not have much to say for "package" besides meta-level references to normative
> body, and is more useful for Producer and Consumer.
> - what is the relationship between "conforming producer" and "conforming extended producer"?
> does conformance to producer implies automatically conformance to extended producer (if yes, say so).

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira