Template for comments and secretariat observations



Download 299.49 Kb.
Page1/4
Date conversion09.07.2018
Size299.49 Kb.
  1   2   3   4

Template for comments and secretariat observations


Date: 2007-08-28

Document: ISO/IEC DIS 29500




1

2

(3)

4

5

(6)

(7)

MB1



Clause No./
Subclause No./
Annex
(and.g. 3.1)

Paragraph/
Figure/Table/Note
(and.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2

Comment (justification for change) by the MB

Proposed change by the MB

Secretariat observations
on each comment submitted



PT

 

 


ed

The document does not conform to the ISO/IEC Directives Part1, 2.14

RAND access must be mentioned in the introduction.




PT

Office Open XML Overview




ge

This document is not listed as part of the Ecma 376 standard in the Forward to Part I “Fundamentals” and its status whether informative or normative is not explicitly stated.

Clarify the status of this Overview document, whether informative or normative. If it is merely a promotional whitepaper about Ecma 376, then it should not be included in the published standard.




PT

No clause. This is the question.




ge

Based currently on the implementation of ECMA specification 376, Microsoft makes it possible for implementers to choose between either a CNS (Covenant Not to Sue) or an OSP (Open Specification Promise) as (currently) mentioned at http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx

Considering that external references tend to be of a volatile nature, it is crucial to include at the beginning of the specification whatever advantages/legal protection mechanisms that the implementer has to ensure his ongoing compliance.

To further ensure the implementer's security, the specification should state the non-applicability of copyrights, patents or royalties.


Include at beginning of specification a list of all Microsoft and non-Microsoft CNS's or OSP's that might help clarifying the legal background for implementing the specification and that will help ensuring full protection for the implementer, mentioning any issues regarding patents, royalties and copyrights whenever necessary.

Consider replacing the promise-not-to-sue approach by a patent grant, which translates better to the existing legislation.







PT

No clause. This is the question




ge

As pointed out in the previous item, and as per the MOSP (Microsoft Open Specification Promise), only the Specifications included in that promise (Covered Specifications) are covered. It is therefore of the essence to add after the previous item that any future revisions of the original specification are equally included in that promise.

Include at beginning of specification and after the previous item all and any Promises or similar references that will ensure the future continuity of the initial Promise for the implementer.




PT

OpenPackagingConventions-RELAXNG.zip

-

ge

There is no explicit indication given as to whether this annex is informative or normative. See ISO Directives, Part 2, section 5.2.6.

Clarify the status of this annex.




PT

OpenPackagingConventions-XMLSchema.zip

-

ge

There is no explicit indication given as to whether this annex is informative or normative. See ISO Directives, Part 2, section 5.2.6

Clarify the status of this annex.




PT

Part 1, Appendix

 

te

The reference given for the Zip format does not provide a date or version, though this specification is frequently revised,

Reference should be made to a particular dated and labeled version of the Zip format.




PT

Part 1, Forward

line 2

ed

DIS 29500 is a multi-part document, not a multi-part Standard, i.e., the individual parts of this Standard are not themselves standards.

Correct the terminology to correctly reflect the status of DIS 29500.


PT


Part 1, Section 10.1.2

line 20

te

Reference is made to material in Part 12, Clause 12. Although a clause of that number does exist, it does not contain the material 10.1.2 references it for.

Correct the reference to point to the correct clause.




PT

Part 1, Section 12.3.5

-

te

This binary part is said to be used for the storage of “arbitrary user-defined data”. No further detail is given as to what user action would trigger the use of this “user-defined” data. Without further definition, no interoperability of this feature is possible.

Fully define the use of Custom Property Part




PT

Part 1, Section 15.2.15

-

te

For there to be interoperability of this feature, it must either specify what size the thumbnail should be or state that the application will scale the image as needed.

Clarify what size the thumbnails should be, or that the images are scaled.




PT

Part 1, Section 15.2.6

-

te

What is meant by “This part shall have no contents”? Does this mean that there shall be nothing in the Zip file with the declared name? Or does it mean that a zero-byte file shall be created with the declared name? Or something else?

Clarify the meaning.




PT

Part 1, Section 15.2.8

-

ed

The examples given are rendered useless by the predominance of the VML in the markup.

Make a more succinct and clear example by concentrating on the control persistence.




PT

Part 4, Section 2.15.2.32

-

te

This feature has been defined in a way which ignores the existence of current browsers other than Internet Explorer. What about Firefox? What about Safari? What about Opera? None of these can be set as target browsers. This section requires that “all settings which are not compatible with the target web browser shall be disabled.” But what if a user wants his application to produce standards-compliant output? So yes to PNG, no to VML, yes to MathML and SVG? Where can we specify this.?


Ecma should rethink the entire optimizeForBrowser subclause. It looks very much like it is mapping directly to the arbitrary choices of a single vendor's application. This clause should be rewritten to express this feature in an application and platform neutral way.




PT

Part 1, Section 2.1 “Goal”

-

ge

There are no normative statements in this clause, though Section 2 is indicated to be normative

Mark clause as informative using one of the mechanisms of Section 7




PT

Part 1, Section 2.2 “Issues”

-

ge

There are no normative, statements in this clause though Section 2 is indicated to be normative

Mark clause as informative using one of the mechanisms of Section 7




PT

Part 1, Section 2.3

line 14

ed


Are additional syntactic constraints only normative when they cannot be feasibly expressed in the schema language? Who judges this? The use of the word “whenever” is ambiguous. Is this a condition under which such statements are normative or an explanation of why such statements exist?

What may be meant is that the additional syntactic constraints are normative, period. Clarify this sentence, perhaps by omitting the editorial explanation about why such additional constraints are not in the schema.




PT

Part 1, Section 2.3

line 16

ed

The use of the word “element” is ambiguous. Is this to mean XML elements (but not attributes, character content, etc.)? Or does this mean an element of the Standard, in the usage of ISO Directives, Part 2?

Clarify the use of the word “element” perhaps by saying “XML element” if that is what is meant.




PT

Part 1, Section 2.4

line 22

te

This line require conformance with “Unicode Standard” without specifying a version. XML 1.0 referred to Unicode 2.0, though the informative Appendix A of OOXML Part 1 lists Unicode 4.0. Which is it?


An explicit Unicode version reference should be made in the Conformance section.




PT

Part 1, Section 2.6

-

ed

The use of the word “element” is ambiguous. Is this to mean XML elements (but not attributes, character content, etc.)? Or does this mean an element of the Standard, in the usage of ISO Directives, Part 2?

Clarify the use of the word “element” perhaps by saying “XML element” if that is what is meant.




PT

Part 1, Section 2.6

line 15

ed

Obviously the Standard anticipates such behavior since it explicitly contains the present example describing this behavior and calls it conforming.

Perhaps it is meant to say, “...this Standard does not recommend this behavior”.




PT

Part 1, Section 2.6

lines 33-34

ed

Is this recommending that a non-public, internal-only, work-for-hire application author create “publicly available documentation” on what subset of the standard it supports? The business relationship between the software author and his customer should not be a concern of this standard.


Change to read, “a software application should be accompanied by documentation...”




PT

Part 1, Section 4 “Definitions”

behavior, implementation-defined

te

“application-specific”, at least in common standards use, is not the same as application-defined, viz. ANSI C Programming Language

Use “application-defined” consistently where the intent is for applications to document their behavior.




PT

Part 1, Section 4 “Definitions”

behavior, unspecified

ed

This definition doesn't work, since the Standard, in defining compliance in Section 2, says that “compliance is purely syntactic”. So no behaviors are required. Therefore, by this definition, all behaviors are unspecified? Surely this is not what is meant.

Clarify this definition. Perhaps it is meant to say, “Behavior for which this Standard does not make a recommendation”?




PT

Part 1, Section 4 “Definitions”

Office Open XML Document


ed

This definition doesn't hold together. Are these two different definitions? Or two clause of which either will define the term? Or both together define the term?

Clarify the definition




PT

Part 1, Section 9.1.1

-

te

ASCII requires a normative reference since there are several national variations.

Suggest reference be made to ISO/IEC 646:1983 or ANSI X3.4-1986




PT

Part 1, Section 9.1.5

-

te

This sub-clause, buried in introductory material, negates a provision of the more detailed OPC specification in Part 2. This will likely be missed by implementors.

If interleaving is not permitted then it should not be described in Part 2.




PT

Part 1, Section 9.1.7

line 10

ed

The naming convention giving is incorrect. H is a hexadecimal digit, not a hexadecimal value.


Follow correct usage pattern as established earlier in 9.1.1.




PT

Part 1, Section 9.1.9

line 25

ed

Incorrect subject. A producer qua producer does not round trip.

Should say, “Conforming producers that are also consumers should...”




PT

Part 1, Section 9.2

page 18, line 8

ed

Extra period following “explicit.”

Remove extraneous punctuation.




PT

Part 2, Section 1. Scope

page 1, lines 9

ed

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).


Replace 'guidelines' with 'rules'.




PT

Part 2, Section 3. Definitions

page 4, line 20

te

This definition of 'package model' is not compatible with the prior definition given in Part 2, Section 1. Scope, page 1, line 5.

Define 'package model' in unambiguous terms and use the resulting definition consistently throughout the OOXML text.




PT

Part 4, Foreword

page vi, line 2

ed

DIS 29500 is a multi-part document, not a multi-part Standard, i.e., the individual parts of this Standard are not themselves standards.

Correct the terminology to correctly reflect the status of DIS 29500.




PT

Part 4, Section 1. Part Overview

page 1

ed

The use of 'Part' for different things is confusing. Line 1 (title) it refers to Part 4 as a subpart of OOXML. Line 3 it implicitly refers to WordprocessingML, SpreadsheetML, etc.


Use another word like 'subpart' when referencing WordprocessingML etc., or else use their full names.




PT

Part 4, Section 1.1 WordprocessingML Part Summary

page 1, line 5

ed

Table row 'Alternative Format Import' is deemed to have no root element and no reference. The value of this row is unclear.

Clarify the table purpose.




PT




  1   2   3   4


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page