Public Comment: Comments from Jacques D. on ODF Part3: Packages

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).