<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Murata-san et al.<br><br></div><div>These comments are of my usual nature, a few typos, some awkward wording, and some places where I am puzzled. This message does not address the issues/questions in the list you circulated on April 17. I believe my suggestions below are independent of decisions that might be made on your issues. I do notice that you have already made many changes following your suggestion 6 in that list.<br><br></div><div> Talk to you soon. Caroline<br></div><div><br>9.1<br></div>Assuming that Annex F has only minimal changes, as at present, I would modify<br>[Note: See Annex F for additional discussion of the physical model. end note]<br> to read<br>[Note: See Annex F for additional discussion of physical model design considerations. end note]<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">9.2.2</p>Not all the "following required components" are required. <br>Perhaps rewrite<br>"The package implementer shall define a physical package format with a mapping for the following required components."<br>as<br>"The package implementer shall define a physical package format with a mapping for the required components in the following table."<br><br>9.2.3.1<br>"
<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri"><b>called</b> the <span class="gmail-m_3049427135119510490gmail-Term" style="font-style:italic">Media Types stream</span></span>" is slightly awkward because the stream has the prefix <b>name</b>
<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">“/[Content_Types].xml” </span>
[see 9.3.7]<br><br></div>Consider changing<br>"For all other physical package formats, the package should include an XML stream called the <i>Media Types stream</i>. [S2.2] The Media Types stream shall not be mapped to a part by the package implementer. [M2.1]"<br> TO SOMETHING LIKE <br>" For all other physical package formats, the package should include an
XML stream referred to in this document as the <i>Media Types stream</i>. [S2.2] The Media Types stream
shall not be mapped to a part by the package implementer. [M2.1] "<br><br>9.2.3.2.1<br></div><div>I would remove "contained" from the first sentence in 2nd para. It's superfluous.<br><br></div><div>Judging from <a href="https://www.iso.org/foreword-supplementary-information.html">https://www.iso.org/foreword-supplementary-information.html</a><br></div><div>I think that a couple of instances of "can" in this sub-clause should be "may."<br></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><span></span></p><div><div><div>9.2.3.2.4<br>An Override element applies only to a single part.<br><br>Therefore, I would rewrite first sentence as:<br>An Override element
shall specify a media type for a part that is not covered by, or is not
consistent with, the default mappings. <br><br>In Description for the ContentType Attribute, I would rewrite the third sentence as:<br><br>* The specified media type shall apply to the part named in the attribute PartName.<br><br>9.2.3.5<br><br></div><div>I am puzzled as to what should be done if step 5 yields an un-mapped part name, e.g., if the document is edited and saved.<br><br>9.2.4.2<br>
<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">"Equvalence of prefix names and that of suffix
names shall be determined</span>"<br></div><div> should be<br>
<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">"Equivalence of prefix names and of suffix
names shall be determined</span>"<br><br>9.2.5<br></div><div>First para., second sentence, I would insert "as" before "defined"<br><br></div><div>First para, third sentence. "implementor" should be "implememter"<br></div><div><br>
<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">First para., last sentence. The meaning of "A physical package format or a physical mapping
is not required to support interleaving." is not immediately clear. "Is not required to support interleaving" is the source of confusion. You could read the sentence as saying, "You don't need a physical package format or a physical mapping if you want to support interleaving." I suggest replacing with <br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">"This document does not require a physical package format or physical mapping to support interleaving."<br>===<br><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">3rd paragraph. <br>"
<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">An individual part shall be stored either in an
interleaved or non-interleaved fashion. <a name="m2_11">The package implementer
shall not mix interleaving and non-interleaving for an individual part.</a>
[M2.11]</span>" <br><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">I found the second sentence rather puzzling on first reading. If a part has any pieces, it would seem that it is stored in an interleaved fashion. If the second sentence is saying anything in addition to the first, is it not already covered by 9.2.4.3 and 9.2.4.5.?<br><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">This may be being picky. It probably isn't doing any harm.<br>===<br><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">Paragraph after first diagram (btw, the text on the diagrams is essentially unreadable when I print it. But that was the case in published version too.)<br><br>
<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">I would change "The image cannot be displayed until <i>all</i>
of the page part <i>and</i> the image part have been received."</span>
<br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri"> to<br>
<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">"The image cannot be displayed until the <i>entire</i> page part <i>and</i> the image part have been received.</span>
<br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri"><br>9.3.2<br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">In new sentence, I would use "described in" rather than "described by"<br><br>9.3.3<br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">"
<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">ZIP file-file name grammar</span>
" needs fixing. BTW, there is no "grammar" per se in the ZIP spec, which says,<br>" file name: (Variable)<br> The name of the file, with optional relative path.<br> The path stored should not contain a drive or<br> device letter, or a leading slash. All slashes<br> should be forward slashes '/' as opposed to<br> backwards slashes '\' for compatibility with Amiga<br> and Unix file systems etc. If input came from standard<br> input, there is no file name field. "<br><br>"archive" in second sentence should probably be "file" assuming that usage suggestion from Murata-san is accepted by the WG.<br><br>9.3.9<br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">I think we need to make sure that "package" means "OPC package" in this sub-clause. Is the middle sentence necessary? I don't know what it is trying to say.<br><br><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri">PS: I have some thoughts on Murata-san's questions/suggestions from his earlier message, but think that they are probably more conveniently addressed on the call.<br></span></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:50 PM, MURATA Makoto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp" target="_blank">eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear colleagues,<div><br></div><div>We will have another teleconf in 17 hours. The biggest </div><div>topic is the review of the latest OPC draft as well </div><div>as recent emails about it.</div><div><br></div><div>The URL of the OPC draft is</div><div><a href="https://1drv.ms/w/s!An5Z79wj5AZBgfpsdSK6syTHAhxagg" target="_blank">https://1drv.ms/w/s!An5Z79wj5A<wbr>ZBgfpsdSK6syTHAhxagg</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Makoto</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>