[sc34-wg1] Problem Statement

[Dave Pawson]

On 30 October 2010 16:09, Andrew Rist <andrew.rist at oracle.com> wrote:
> Dave,
> I attempted to do that in the second part of the statement.  Read down.
> also, I am adding specific suggestions and additions to the working copy at
> the wiki
> A.

I'd like to keep the problems 'clean'/soluble Andrew, so this group can check
back that we've answered them when we hand over.

Technical Issues related to the use of ZIP as a Document Package

    * Minimum feature set relevant to all document packaging use of ZIP
    * additional syntax
    * additional objects and metadata
    * signatures and encryption
    * ZIP URL protocol & fragment identifiers
Is that the list? How to transform them into clean problem statements

First stab:
Technical Issues related to the use of ZIP as a Document Package

    * Minimum feature set relevant to all document packaging use of ZIP
   That's 'use case' dependent surely? Broadly an insoluble problem that
implementers do different things wrt the note.
  Perhaps the problem is that different users use different subsets 'informally'
I.e. choosing extensions, which is addressable.

    * additional syntax
    Additional to what?
   "Different implementations use different syntax in their extensions "?

    * additional objects and metadata
??? I don't understand this? Who has add... ?
Is this just a re-statement of 'different vendors do it differently'?
IMHO that's too broad and should be approached from a different
direction?



    * signatures and encryption
Is this a user requirement.. or just that implementers differ?
Or that both need to be 'defined' as some level of extension?



    * ZIP URL protocol & fragment identifiers

That's the ODF use case isn't it? I'm against this on the principle that
once the standard gets to deal with zip content, there be dragons?

IMHO that should be out of scope.


regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk