Uploaded image for project: 'OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC'
  1. OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC
  2. OFFICE-2313

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



    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Applied
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: ODF 1.2 Part 3 CD 1
    • Fix Version/s: ODF 1.2 Part 1 CD 5
    • Component/s: Packaging
    • Labels:


      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:


      • 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
      "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."

      3- Editorial: Section 2.7
      "Note: File whose relative path starts with "META-INF/ are..."
      "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).




            • Assignee:
              michael.brauer Michael Brauer (Inactive)
              rcweir Robert Weir (Inactive)
            • Watchers:
              0 Start watching this issue


              • Created: