Public Comment: Comments from Jacques Durand on ODF for Office Applications Part 1

Copied from office-comment list

Original author: "Jacques R. Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>
Original date: 12 Mar 2010 23:18:24 -0000
Original URL: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/201003/msg00004.html

The text of the comment is as follows:
[1]- p83: Section 2 "Scope" seems to be incomplete.

[2]- the labels for columns in Table 6 should be concisely explained/defined in a
small terminology list in same section.

[3]- section 3.16 Document and Macro Signatures
could be more clearly retitled: "Document Signature and Macro Signature" ?

[4]- section 3.1.3.2 and similar sections: the expression "package file" is misleading as it
may suggest that the "file" is a "package" which is not the case:
"...The package file for the <office:document-content> is content.xml. ..."
Instead, we are talking of a file inside a package:
how about "...The package component file for the..."

[5]- section 7.4.1: In: "...The variable declarations are collected in container elements
for the each variable type. "
remove "the" in "..for [the] each variable..."

[6]- Conformance Clause (1):
D1.2.2. " XML root elements of the files shall be ..."
Is an ODF package allowed to contain other additional files besides content.xml, meta.xml, etc?
(non described in this specification)?
This conf clause does not prohibit that, I assume it is OK (D.1.1.2 suggests it).
If yes, that should be made clearer and also why that may be useful.

[7]- Conformance Clause (2):
D1.2: "If the document is an OpenDocument package, then the following requirements shall be met...
for its contained files named ..."
The Clause should probably say that in addition:
"each file's content shall adhere to the requirements in this specification
that are related to its XML root element (in addition to schema validation)".
There are indeed requirements that are not entirely captured by schema validation
(e.g. well-formedness of marks and indexes, etc.)

[8]- Conformance Clause (3):
P1.1: "(P1.1) It shall not produce any non-conforming OpenDocument document of any kind."
That is a strange requirement: what is a "non-conforming OpenDocument document "?
DO we mean here more precisely: "shall not produce any document containing ODF namespaces,
that is not itself a conforming OpenDocument document."
(NOTE: an exception to this could be that the Producer may produce some folder document
or some manifest that contains ODF namespaces, e.g. referencing existing ODF docs.)

[9]- Conformance Clause (4): Consumer Conformance
(C1) "A Conforming OpenDocument Consumer is a program that can parse and interpret
OpenDocument documents, and that meets the following additional requirements:"
The notion of "interpeting" and ODF doc should be better defined.
Are we talking of some kind of "rendering"? According to what rules?