Part 5 - Markup Compatibility and Extensibility
From OOXML-Wiki
Contents |
[edit] 4 [12]
Why "element type name"? The example suggests it should be a "datatype name".
[edit] 6 [2]
Why is this specification targetted at academics? It does not seem to contain any formal definitions of new processes.
Response: The section defined methods for extending the specification in the future.
Question: are there specific things missing or problems with the content?
[edit] 8 [30]
Remove linebreak in middle of "document".
[edit] 8.2 [25]
The term specification (or standard) normally refers to the whole of a standard. When referring to a specific part of a standard it is more usual to refer to "this part of the specification".
[edit] 9 [Table 9.2]
The phrases "element-qualified name" and attribute-qualified name" are confusing. Most users would be inclined to use "qualified element name" and "qualified attribute name". If there is a deliberate reason for introducing a new variant name the new names should be formally defined in Clause 3: Definitions.
The phrase "element qualified name" differs from the initial use of the phrase with a hyphen in it. Please adopt a consistent spelling for the phrase.
NB These comments apply to subsequent clauses, where the phrases in this table form the first para of the clause.
Response: If needed, the wording here can be updated. It's an editorial issue that can be corrected during the BRM meeting.
[edit] 9.1.3 [2]
Need a space between of and conditions.
[edit] 9.1.3 [6]
Need a period between behavior and Before.
[edit] 9.1.4 [19]
Need a space in "containsa"
[edit] 9.1.4 [8]
The example should be number 9-5 not 10-5.
[edit] 9.2.1 [28-30]
It is not clear why this rule is needed. Surely once a Choice element has been matched there should be no need to read subsequent Choice or Fallback elements at all, but if this sentence is retained then they have to be read to check their attribute values, adding unnecessary processing to the consumer.
Response: When a match is found, it would not be necessary to read other choice elements,but other choice elements are read to make sure that attributes of other Choice or FallBack elements have no issue related to its conformance to the specification, as stated in the line 28 and 29, 'In processing an AlternateContent element, the attributes of every child Choice or Fallback element shall be processed and checked for conformance to this specification.'
[edit] 9.2.2 [16]
It's not clear what the relationship between Required and MustUnderstand attributes in a Choice element would be. Any miss-match between the values of the two is likely to trigger an error. Given the provision of a FallBack element, I can't see any use case where there's a value in the use of MustUnderstand in a Choice.
[edit] 9.2.3 [6]
Remove space in "element s"
[edit] 10.2 [10 & 22]
It is not clear why v2: has been added to the element name in both these cases.
Response: Line 22 has no example with 'v2' in it, it's assumed that the reviewer is pointing out to line 12, along with line10. Since the section is speaking about the namespaces that define alternate content and handling of any XML elements and attributes not understood by the consumer, based on the aim of part 5, it should be understood that ' v2 ' is a namespace prefix used for elements and attributes that come under the corresponding namespace(as described by v2)
[edit] 10.2 [22]
There is no Example 13-1 in this part. Is this supposed to be a reference to Example 12-1?
Response: The reference to Example 13-1, in the line 22, of Section 10.2, is a typo, and will be corrected during the BRM meeting.
[edit] 11 [16]
Why is the quoted phrase island emboldened as if it were a definition rather than italicised as the first use of a term?
Response: The term ‘island’ is neither a definition, nor is the first usage. The term ‘island’ denotes a section of XML snippet, called ‘Extension Elements’, which are not processed. Elements that are not processed as part of the corresponding XML snippet containing them are denoted as ‘islands’. The idea behind enclosing the term within quotes, stresses upon the concept of ‘Extension Elements’.
[edit] Annex B [7-8]
Why are ISO/IEC directives referenced in this Bibliography (they are normally an implicit part of an ISO standard's references and not directly cited unless text from the directive is quoted.)
Response: The Annex A in Part 5 is about validation using NVDL, and hence the bibliography has the reference to its relevant ISO directive that is “ISO/IEC 197575-4, Information technology - Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL) - Part 4:Namespace-based Validation Dispatching Language (NVDL).” Similarly, the ISO/IEC Directives Part 2, Rules for the structure and drafting of International Standards, states that : “This part of the ISO/IEC Directives specifies rules for the structure and drafting of documents intended to become International Standards, Technical specifications or Publicly Available Specifications.” Since ECMA 376 is intended to become an international standard, it is using ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 as its reference. Therefore it is mentioned in the bibliography of Part5 of the specification.
