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).