<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText">Re: the list of steps in A.3 (last noted in the Prague minutes)…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">We had a lengthy discussion about this in Prague. I asserted that the input string to the steps in A.3 isn’t a “relative reference” as defined in RFC 3986, but merely a string in file content that was intended to *represent* a relative
reference and which might need clean-up preprocessing before being processed by the RFC’s relative reference resolution algorithm. According to my notes, we didn’t discuss this further in the previous call, so here is some further info from the OPC designers
I traded mail with recently. (Yes, I’m catching up on SC 34 work today!)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">“IMO the point here is that OPC provides the normative way of resolving Unicode strings that represent relative references to parts in a package [Annex A. first line] to part names. It does not pretend to specify how any reference that
may occur in the user-defined content shall be processed. At this point it is a duty of processing application to decide which reference in the content fit the condition above, but if it decides it fits, resolving it to part name must follow the spec (= Annex
A).”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Fortunately, my interpretation seems to align with their intention. That is, the consuming application needs to interpret the string in the file and, if it determines that the string represents a relative reference, to preprocess it
as specified in Annex A, which culminates in running it through the RFC algorithm. I hope that helps to hear from the designers, since none of us could be 100% certain what the underlying intent was.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">John<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Rex Jaeschke [mailto:rex@RexJaeschke.com] <br>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:05 AM<br>
To: SC 34 WG4<br>
Cc: TC45<br>
Subject: PLEASE PROOF: Draft minutes from the SC 34/WG4 F2F Prague Meeting, 2014-06-18/20</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">We closed the following DRs:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">DR 09-0168 "OPC: No mechanism to distinguish ECMA-376:2006 from IS 29500"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">DR 09-0281 "OPC: Use of the term "part""<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">DR 09-0288 "OPC: Target attribute value needed to reference OPC parts"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">DR 12-0022 "WML: Settings, transformation details missing"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">DR 13-0003 "General: Parts 1 and 4 Miscellaneous Editorial Nits"; Closed Issues #14-17 DR 13-0015 "Copy-paste errors"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">DR 14-0003 "SML: Incomplete specification of SpreadsheetML function inputs and outputs"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">DR 14-0004 "SML: Broken Link to Schema"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">DR 14-0005 "SML: Issue in Shared String Table"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">DR 14-0006 "General: Values that exceed the Specification"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">DR 14-0007 "SML: Guidance as to the use of attributes or child elements for optional, single-valued items"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Rex<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>