comments on latest draft

[Bruce D'Arcus <bruce.darcus@OpenDocument.us>]

OK, comments:

Section 1.1
===========

1. "number metadata" -->  "number of metadata"

2. "Applications that read and write document should preserve all 
metadata files."

Sorry, that's not good enough. All ODF 1.2 compliant applications 
"shall" preserve the files.

3.  Question: do we want to offer suggestions on RDF/XML serialization 
to make it friendlier to XML tools?

Section 1.1.1
=============

4. The meta:category example should use the new URI for vCard (the 
older one is being deprecated).

<http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#>

5.  This is a big question: does it really make sense to create and 
maintain a RELAX NG schema for an RDF manifest? Also, given the 
built-in extensibility, should it be useable for any file? Is the 
intention to transition to this new, more flexible, representation over 
time?

6. Under "Metadata file entry" the phrase "inherent semantics" is 
unclear.

7. top of p6, the RDF/XML example has an incorrect "xml:about" 
attribute.

Section 1.2.1
=============

8. First sentence is unclear.

9. the list item "table cells" has the incorrect element (also on 
another page)

Section 1.2.2
=============

10. The list item 1 is unclear.

11. The list item 2 might include reference to the fact that the 
meta:label may do more than just display, but might offer other 
functionality?

12. The discussion of RDF literals might reference the relevant place 
in the RDF spec, rather than (or in addition to) the XPath reference?

So I think the proposal is definitely looking better, though we still 
have a few big and little things to resolve. I did not list the 
business about the document URI, but I consider that really important.

Bruce