DR 09-0168 ? OPC: No mechanism to distinguish ECMA-376:2006 from IS 29500

[MURATA Makoto]

Do you mean the attachment of your mail (
http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/2010-November/001875.html
)?  Namely, http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20101110/679cb8a9/attachment-0001.bin
 ??

Regards,
Makoto

2010/11/24 Chris Rae <Chris.Rae at microsoft.com>:
> Rex points out that my new clause appears to be entirely missing from my DR. This seems true, looking at my local version. Murata-san, did you get a complete copy from which you made those edits?
>
> The writing took me quite a while so if anyone else has a copy I'd very much appreciate it back again. :)
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Rae
> Sent: 23 November 2010 11:00
> To: 'MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)'; e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: RE: DR 09-0168 ? OPC: No mechanism to distinguish ECMA-376:2006 from IS 29500
>
> This looks fine to me - I think it makes a bit more sense in Clause 8 than 2.1, though.
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
> Sent: 18 November 2010 14:46
> To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: Re: DR 09-0168 ? OPC: No mechanism to distinguish ECMA-376:2006 from IS 29500
>
> Chris,
>
> Thanks for your clarifications.
>
> I then propose to rewrite your new clause "Packaging" in Part 4.
>
>         Clause 8 (in Part 4)
>
>         No OPC part names in documents of conformance class Transitional
>         shall contain characters that match the non-terminal ucschar in
>         RFC 3987.
>
>         Note: This additional condition ensures interoperability between
>         Ecma 376 (1st edition) and the conformance class Transitional.
>
> Alternatively, we might want to incorporate this restriction in Clause
> 2.1 (Document Conformance) of Part 4.
>
> Cheers,
> Makoto
>



-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto