DR-10-0005: Shared MLs, File Properties: incorrect source relationship

[Jesper Lund Stocholm]

Hi Shawn,

 

This is clearly a typo in the specification and I don't see any reason
for it not being included in COR2.

 

 

Jesper Lund Stocholm
ciber Danmark A/S

 

From: Shawn Villaron [mailto:shawnv at microsoft.com] 
Sent: 8. april 2010 06:09
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: DR-10-0005: Shared MLs, File Properties: incorrect source
relationship

 

Good morning, afternoon and evening.

 

Here is my proposed response to this defect report.  

 

Identification of the Problem

So the issue comes down to a conflict between Part 1 and Part 2
regarding the Relationship Type for the Core Properties part:

 

*         Part 1:
http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officedocument/2006/relationships/meta
data/core-properties
<http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officedocument/2006/relationships/met
adata/core-properties> 

*         Part 2:
http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/metadata/co
re-properties
<http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/metadata/c
ore-properties> 

 

>From my perspective this is clearly just a typo in Part 1.  Two
observations justify this conclusion:

 

First, all OPC parts defined in Part 2 have the same root relationship
name ( pages 90 and 91 ):

 

Description

Relationship Type

Core Properties 

http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/metadata/co
re-properties
<http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/metadata/c
ore-properties> 

Digital Signature 

http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/digital-sig
nature/signature
<http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/digital-si
gnature/signature> 

Digital Signature Certificate 

http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/digital-sig
nature/certificate
<http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/digital-si
gnature/certificate> 

Digital Signature Origin

http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/digital-sig
nature/origin
<http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/digital-si
gnature/origin> 

Thumbnail

http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/metadata/th
umbnail
<http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/metadata/t
humbnail> 

 

Second, all OPC-defined parts as defined in Part 2, which are referenced
in Part 1, share these same relationships, except for the Core
Properties part:

 

*         Core Properties ( page 155)
http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officedocument/2006/relationships/meta
data/core-properties
<http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officedocument/2006/relationships/met
adata/core-properties> 

*         Digital Signature ( page 149 )
http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/digital-sig
nature/signature
<http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/digital-si
gnature/signature> 

*         Digital Signature Origin ( page 148 )
http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/digital-sig
nature/origin
<http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/digital-si
gnature/origin> 

*         Thumbnail ( page 163 )
http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/metadata/th
umbnail
<http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/metadata/t
humbnail> 

 

Which version of the Truth is Correct?

I think it is also a reasonable position that Part 2 should be the
definitive definition of OPC parts, as opposed to Part 1.  

 

Recommended Change

Based on these observations, I'd recommend we make the following changes
to Part 1, Section 15.2.12.1:

 


15.2.12.1        Core File Properties Part

Content Type:

application/vnd.openxmlformats-package.core-properties+xml

Root Namespace:

http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/metadata/core-properties

Source Relationship:

http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officedocument/2006/relationships/meta
data/core-properties

http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/metadata/co
re-properties

 

 

And since this may create a breaking change for some implementations, I
would recommend that we consider this a candidate for and amendment and
not a corrigenda.

 

Naturally, I'd be very interested in feedback regarding this defect
report.

 

Thanks,

 

shawn

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20100408/63ec372d/attachment-0001.htm>