RE: [office] Conforming OpenDocument Text Document, etc. [Take 2]

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

With regard to item (2), the current wording is as if there is always an
<office:document> element, and it seemed as valuable to qualify that just as
there is not always a package.  That was my first concern.  (Whether or not
there are useful cases for all of the document types represented with single
XML documents is a different matter.) 

Concerning making proper noun (phrases) with capitalization, I trust an
editor to fix it only if we declare ourselves about how we will refer to
conformance targets (and only refer to conformance targets?).  Otherwise, it
is left to the editor to distinguish when common language is being used or
not.  We need the technical resolution first.  I favor the proper nouns, as
I said.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 11:37
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office] Conforming OpenDocument Text Document, etc. [Take 2]

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 03/30/2009 
01:47:21 PM:

[ ... ]

> 2. The (Dx.1) paragraphs (x = 3 .. 8) should probably begin with 
something
> like "If the document is represented using a single XML document, the 
root
> <office:document> element shall ..." to be parallel with the 
conditionality
> of the (Dx.2) paragraphs.  (I have not reviewed the rules for all of 
those
> flavors to confirm that non-trivial non-package representations are 
actually
> possible in every case, but shall not worry about that at this point on
> faith that there are useful valid instances.  The language works either
> way.)
> 

It means the same thing either way, right?


[ ... ]


> Having agreed on the proper names, we will need to be careful elsewhere 
in
> the document when conformance targets are called out in normative
> statements. 
> 

Honestly, I was capitalizing them as important words in headers, not 
necessary suggesting them as proper nouns.  But I agree we should be 
consistent in however we do this.  It might be worth looking at a few 
other standards and see how they have done it.

[ ... ]