<div dir="ltr"><div>I've realized that I forgot to check one thing about the two versions of ZIP64. It turns out that Version 1 and version 2 are both described in APPNOTE 6.2.0. So perhaps we don't need to keep the references to APPNOTE 4.5.0 in Table B-1 but find another way to explain things. Searching for "Version 2" in APPNOTE 6.2.0 will find the relevant text (as well as irrelevant stuff).<br><br></div> Caroline<br><div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:35 AM, caroline arms <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:caroline.arms@gmail.com" target="_blank">caroline.arms@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Murata-san,<br><br></div>Here are a few notes for Annex B. However, I have not been through the annex in fine detail. These are just things I ran into when exploring other ZIP-related issues.<br><br></div>Your new title for the clause has a typo. "
<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">Restrctions</span>" is missing an "i" -- should be "<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">Restrictions"<br><br></span></div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">B.1. Need to qualify "packages" to make sure we are talking about OPC packages.<br>===<br><br></span></div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">Table B-1<br><br></span></div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">"from spec version 4.5" (which occurs at least twice in the table) is referring to <a href="https://www.pkware.com/documents/APPNOTE/APPNOTE-4.5.0.txt" target="_blank">https://www.pkware.com/<wbr>documents/APPNOTE/APPNOTE-4.5.<wbr>0.txt</a><br></span></div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">Do we need to add this to Normative References or Bibliography? Do we need to explain this reference better?<br><br></span></div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">What seems to be the case is that use of ZIP64 is somewhat discouraged and only the version 1 is permitted. This corresponds to ISO/IEC 21320-1. Should we make this clearer?<br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri"><br>"from spec version 6.2" is also used. Should it be better explained?<br><br>===<br><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">Table B-3 <br>"
<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">requirements for the Extract field</span>
" should be "
<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">requirements for the Version Needed to Extract field</span>.<br><br>===<br><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">As I pointed out in Clause 9 notes, we should consider whether "Extra field" should be "Extra Field" in most instances in Annex B. APPNOTE uses "Extra Field" and "extra field"<br><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri"> Caroline (now <span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">turning to other, non-OOXML, matters</span>)<br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri"><br></span></div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri"><br></span><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri"><br><br></span><div><div><div><div><div> <br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>