<div dir="ltr">Folks,<div><br></div><div>How about this?</div><div><br></div><div><div>Regards,</div><div>Makoto</div><div><br></div><div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br></div><div>Murata explained his rewrite of the latest WD of OPC. It has been </div><div>improved on the basis of feedback in recent WG4 teleconferences.</div><div>Based on further feedback in this meeting, Murata is instructed to improve </div><div>the rewrite and WG4 agreed to adopt it as the next WD.</div><div><br></div><div>Scope</div><div><br></div><div>Murata introduced his proposed rewrite. It is much shorter, since it</div><div>does not describe mechanisms but rather focuses on what is meant to be</div><div>achieved. Deleted paragraphs are moved to the Overview clause, and</div><div>thus no information is lost.</div><div><br></div><div>We will have to improve the scope further, but probably after we have</div><div>a better idea about the introduction of XAdES into OPC.</div><div><br></div><div>Clasue 5 (Overview)</div><div><br></div><div>Murata explained that the third and following paragraphs are moved</div><div>from the scope. This clause still requires significant rewrite, after</div><div>we have a better idea about the introduction of XAdES into OPC.</div><div><br></div><div>Clause 8 (Package Model)</div><div><br></div><div>On the basis of feedback in recent WG4 teleconferences, subclauses</div><div>8.2 (Parts), 8.3 (Pack URI Scheme), 8.4 (Base IRIs), 8.5 (Resolving</div><div>Relative References), and 8.6 (Relationships) have been significantly</div><div>improved. In particular, it has been made clear that pack URIS are</div><div>used for both inside and outside references.</div><div><br></div><div>John pointed out that having both a BNF for IRIs and a BNF for URIs is</div><div>confusing and suggested that we should only have one for IRIs. Murata</div><div>is instructed to implement this suggestion (including the use of "IRI" </div><div>rather than "URI" wherever possible).</div><div><br></div><div>John also proposed a rewrite of "8.2.2.3 Part Name Integrity in a</div><div>Package" by reordering existing text. It was agreed that his rewrite</div><div>be adopted.</div><div><br></div><div>The term "content type" in 8.2.3 has been discussed in the past. It</div><div>was quickly agreed that we should postpone this discussion to future</div><div>teleconferences since Caroline Arms can participate.</div><div><br></div><div>There was some discussion about "growth hint" in 8.2.4. We agreed</div><div>that it is not represented by XML documents but is merely captured as</div><div>a part of ZIP.</div><div><br></div><div>Murata argued that the itemized list in 8.2.5 is doubtful. But </div><div>we find that it applies to XML documents specified in Annex D </div><div>but does not apply to other XML documents in OPC packages. </div><div>However, some editorial clarifications are needed.</div><div><br></div><div>Annex: Guidelines for Meeting Conformance</div><div><br></div><div>Murata proposed to delete all tables in this annex, because (1) they</div><div>add nothing new but merely duplicate information, (2) they do not</div><div>capture some requirements in the body, (3) they make the revision</div><div>process difficult, and (4) some columns are not about conformance. It</div><div>was agreed to postpone this issue until we have a better idea about</div><div>the introduction of XAdES into OPC.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-09-29 18:46 GMT+09:00 MURATA Makoto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp" target="_blank">eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I am sorry for my belated reply. I will provide required text very soon. <div>I spoke with XAdES experts and they think that the proposed minutes </div><div>are very nice.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Makoto</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="h5"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-09-26 17:41 GMT+09:00 John Haug <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com" target="_blank">johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Oh, are there further adjustments Murata-san wishes to make based on this week's discussion? If so, your understanding makes sense.<br>
<span><br>
John<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Rex Jaeschke [mailto:<a href="mailto:rex@RexJaeschke.com" target="_blank">rex@RexJaeschke.com</a>]<br>
</span><span>Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 12:08 AM<br>
To: 'SC 34 WG4'<br>
</span><div><div>Subject: RE: PLEASE PROOF: Day 3 Draft Minutes of the Kyoto Meeting, <a href="tel:2014-09-23%2F25" value="+12014092325" target="_blank">2014-09-23/25</a><br>
<br>
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding John, but here's what I thought we agreed to on this topic: Once Murata-san updated the wiki based on this week's meeting feedback, I'd use that to generate WD1. Then I'd circulate that to WG4 for review, after which we'd presumably adopt that as the new base document.<br>
That is, we won't actually adopt WD1 until after we've seen it.<br>
<br>
Rex<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: John Haug [mailto:<a href="mailto:johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com" target="_blank">johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:50 AM<br>
To: Rex Jaeschke; SC 34 WG4<br>
Subject: RE: PLEASE PROOF: Day 3 Draft Minutes of the Kyoto Meeting,<br>
<a href="tel:2014-09-23%2F25" value="+12014092325" target="_blank">2014-09-23/25</a><br>
<br>
We walked through Murata-san's latest draft.<br>
<WG4 Delegates in Kyoto: Please send me any of your notes re the detailed discussions, so I can include them here.><br>
<br>
I suggest adding something indicating the draft was revised based on comments during the review and the resulting document was agreed to become an official working draft as a basis for further work.<br>
<br>
John<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Rex Jaeschke [mailto:<a href="mailto:rex@RexJaeschke.com" target="_blank">rex@RexJaeschke.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 3:32 PM<br>
To: SC 34 WG4<br>
Subject: PLEASE PROOF: Day 3 Draft Minutes of the Kyoto Meeting,<br>
<a href="tel:2014-09-23%2F25" value="+12014092325" target="_blank">2014-09-23/25</a><br>
<br>
These are NOT the final minutes.<br>
<br>
Attendees have until the end of 2014-10-01 to send me any contributions from the technical discussions we had on OPC revision.<br>
<br>
Also, at tomorrow's Closing SC 34 Plenary, we'll be able to say where and when the next WF4 Face-to-Face meeting will be held.<br>
<br>
After I've integrated this information, I'll send out the final draft.<br>
<br>
Rex<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div></div></div><span class="">-- <br><br>Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake<br><br>Makoto
</span></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><br>Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake<br><br>Makoto
</div>