Review of specification: ODF Part3:
(by TAB member: Jacques Durand)
- I would not characterize the gray boxes as
"non-normative", since they
often re-state or re-word normative material they
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
"then the relative IRI shall interpreted as a
package file entry reference."
"then the relative
IRI shall be interpreted as a package file entry reference."
"Note: File whose relative path starts with
"Note: Files the relative path of which starts with
4- Section 5: it looks like at the end of each
subsection, a gray box
should wrap up almost every last
5- Conformance Clause:
- correctly identifies the Conformance targets
(packages, producer, consumer)
- unclear meaning of the labeling "PD1", "PD1.1",
- general comment: many COnf clause statements
appear to just be repeats
of what the normative specification already says,
(PD1.1) It shall be a ZIP file, as defined by
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
- 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
- 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).