DR 09-0030 - OPC: Placement of package RelationshipReference elements

[MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)]

Dear colleagues,

We closed this DR long time ago.  I believe that no changes to RELAX NG
schemas are needed since Doug and Chris confirmed that the original RNG 
schemas capture the intention of the prose.   Thus, the schema change 
field in the DR long should be N rather than Y.  Please make this
correction.  > Rex

Cheers

> DR 09-0030 was waiting for an answer to the question of whether the RNG schemas matched the original intent. I've looked into this - the RNG schemas dictate that:
> 
> * There can be no sibling elements of SignatureTime
> * There cannot be more than one SignatureTime within a SignatureProperty
> * There can be more than one RelationshipReference within  a Transform element
> * There can be more than one RelationshipGroupReference  within  a Transform element
> * RelationshipReference  and RelationshipGroupReference elements may coexist  within  a Transform element
> * A Transform element cannot have any other sibling elements
> 
> I've looked through the rest of Part 2 and the schemas and have confirmed all of these statements to be true. I think this means we should be able to close this DR and accept Shawn's changes to the prose and Murata-san's changes to the RNG schema. Murata-san, can you put this one on the agenda for next Thursday's DR reports during the call? 

Regards,

SC34/WG4 Convenor
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)