Part 2 - Open Packaging Conventions
From OOXML-Wiki
[edit] General
Part 2 defines Open Packaging Conventions (OPC) in terms that, according to Part 1, Section 9.1 Constraints on Office Open XML's Use of OPC, are more general than needed for the purpose of OOXML. This is due to bring confusion, and should be resolved.
Proposed change: Part 2 should be amended either by: a) referencing an established standard (in which case placing documented constraints upon its use in OOXML would be fine), or else b) tightening Part 2 contents so as to keep it focused on OOXML related matters, or else c) submit OPC as a separate packaging-focused standard and, provided that it is accepted as a standard, apply option a) to it.
[edit] 1 Scope [p1, 9]
The 'well-defined naming guidelines' expression is an oxymoron in the context of a standard. This is reinforced in the case of OOXML proposal by the fact that 'guidance' parts of the text are explicitly meant to be informative only (as opposed to normative).
Proposed change: Replace 'guidelines' with 'rules'.
[edit] Page 2 Normative References
The normative references listed here include only ISO and ISO/IEC standards, while the normative body of the text makes reference to many other specifications, such as RFC3986, RFC2616, XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes, ZIP specification, XML-Signature Syntax & Processing (most of the bibliography entries could be moved to normative references). This is presumably a difference between the Ecma and ISO rules on normative references. Does that mean that it's acceptable given the fast-track procedure in use?
[edit] 3 Definitions [p4, 20]
This definition of 'package model' is not compatible with the prior definition given in Part 2, Section 1. Scope, page 1, line 5.
Proposed change: Define 'package model' in unambiguous terms and use the resulting definition consistently throughout the OOXML text.
[edit] Page 9 line 25
This line references "a note as specified in 4.1, “Document Conventions.”", but there's nothing in 4.1 describing notes. Either 4.1 needs a description of a note to be added, or this cross reference must be removed. Without knowing how "standard" the use of notes is in this standard according to Ecma procedures, I can't suggest which is better.
[edit] Page 10 lines 13-15
The second sentence in this paragraph is normative text in a clause explicitly described as informative. I would support making this whole paragraph normative, but that may cause problems as the normative/informative split in this Ecma standard appears to be at the level of whole clauses, except where notes are used. A change in the normative/informative status of the clause would also require changes in section 6.
[edit] Page 12 line 3
It looks as if this line should have been a sub-clause (8.1.1.1)
[edit] Page 62 line 4
Missing space in "SignatureValueelement", should be "SignatureValue element".
[edit] Page 80 line 2
Incorrect cross-reference; this one should be [M3.21]
[edit] ANNEX A [p81, OpenPackagingConventions-XMLSchema.zip ]
There is no explicit indication given as to whether this annex is informative or normative. See ISO Directives, Part 2, section 5.2.6.
Proposed change: Clarify the status of this annex.
[edit] ANNEX A [p81, OpenPackagingConventions-XMLSchema.zip ]
This annex was not provided in a humanly-readable format as required by JTC1 Directives 8.3.5 and Annex H.
Proposed change: The annex should be provided in a humanly-readable, lined-numbered format so it can be referenced and cited. Additionally, an electronic machine-readable version can be provided according to Annex H.
[edit] Page 82 line 5
It is stated "If discrepancies exist between the electronic version of a schema and its corresponding representation as published in this part, Part 2, the electronic version is the definitive version.".
The editor must ensure no such discrepancies exist, as the published schema examples are normative. Alexbrn 10:57, 3 May 2007 (BST)
[edit] ANNEX B [p82, OpenPackagingConventions-RELAXNG.zip ]
There is no explicit indication given as to whether this annex is informative or normative. See ISO Directives, Part 2, section 5.2.6.
Proposed change: Clarify the status of this annex.
[edit] ANNEX B [p82, OpenPackagingConventions-RELAXNG.zip ]
This annex was not provided in a humanly-readable format as required by JTC1 Directives 8.3.5 and Annex H.
Proposed change: The annex should be provided in a humanly-readable, lined-numbered format so it can be referenced and cited. Additionally, an electronic machine-readable version can be provided according to Annex H.
