<div dir="ltr"><div><div>The last batch of comments I have ready before the call are for Clause 8. <br><br></div>I can work on the remaining clauses before the next call. Sorry to miss this one.<br><br></div> Caroline<br><div><div><br><br><div><div class="gmail_extra">8.1<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Last paragraph: One of the few places I find "pack URI scheme" The sentence doesn't match the definition in Terms and Definitions, in that it uses "URIs", not "IRIs".<br><br>8.2.4<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I would use "in place" rather than "in-place"<br><br>8.2.5<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Item 3 is hardly syntactic and therefore doesn't really contribute to conformance -- as implied by the intro to the list of requirements.<br>However, the need to follow its guidance is stressed and cited in 8.5.4.1 and 9.2.3.2.1<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">We can probably live with this.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Item 5 ends with two periods.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">8.3.2 is now title Pack Scheme (no URI or IRI)<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Only "IRI" is used in the text.<br><br>8.4.1<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">First paragraph<br>I would include the title for clause 6.5 of RFC 3987 -- Use of IRIs Should the first mention of RFC 3987 actually be RFC 3986?<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Second paragraph.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Another place where "preprocessing" is used as a noun. I would substitute "pre-processing outline" or similar. See earlier message with comments on Annex A.<br><br>8.4.3.3, 8.4.3.4, 8.4.3.5,<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Each of these subclauses uses the same awkward structure of a similar sentence.<br> that ("bar.xml") stops the reader in the middle of the complete phrase that defines what ("bar.xml") represents.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I would move the parenthesized ("bar.xml") later in the sentence, changing <br> Likewise, the path component ("/") of the base IRI and that ("bar.xml") of the relative reference are merged. The<br>merge routine emits "/bar.xml".<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">TO<br> Likewise, the path component ("/") of the base IRI and that of the relative reference ("bar.xml") are merged. The<br>merge routine emits "/bar.xml".<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">The first parenthesized component is not grammatically awkward, but could be moved for symmetry.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">YIELDING<br>Likewise, the path component of the base IRI ("/") and that of the relative reference ("bar.xml") are merged. The<br>merge routine emits "/bar.xml".<br> <br></div><div class="gmail_extra">NOTE: There are several instances of the same awkward structure in these subclauses. I won't repeat the explanation.<br><br>8.4.3.4<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">second paragraph<br>Begins "As in the previous case" but the word "case" has a different meaning in these clauses.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Perhaps replace with "example"<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">8.4.3.5 has a title that is very close to the title for 8.4.3.4. <br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I wonder whether that can be addressed. I'm a little afraid that someone might eliminate the second dot/period by mistake when editing. I wondered about "Double-dot" but the RFC doesn't use that term.<br><br>8.5.1.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Third paragraph. I'm afraid I don't understand Murata-san's response to my comment or what his intent is wrt the specification text. I still find the sentence unclear.<br><br>8.5.3.1<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I think we need to know why the requirement that is reflected in Annex H of the 2012 spec as M.1.25 was dropped. Was it an inadvertent deletion?<br><br>8.5.4.3<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">There is a reference at the bottom of the TargetMode row to this clause. It should probably go to
<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">§C.4. </span>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Aside: I think it may be unwise to try and drop the schemas from Part 2 this time around. It may delay things unnecessarily. <br><br>8.5.5.1<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Title needs Relationships in the plural <br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Second paragraph<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I would replace "an XML document" with "the XML document"<br><br>8.5.5.2<br><div class="gmail_extra">Second paragraph<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I would replace "an XML document" with "the XML document"</div><br>8.5.5.3<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Title needs Parts in the plural. See diagram and the text that follows it.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I would make the title <br> Relationships Parts related to Digital Signature Markup<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">and provide a reference to Clause 12.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">The diagram would be better if it explained that the arrows represented relationships.<br><br>8.5.5.4<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">First paragraph:<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Delete "of" from "outside of"<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>8.5.5.5<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">First paragraph:<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I would change "each using unique Id values" to <br> "each using a unique Id value"<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>