PLEASE PROOF: Draft AMD Set 1 for 29500

[MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)]

Rick,

> Sorry if I am missed it, but the draft Amendment seems to use only the old
> URIs for relationships.

No old relationship types appear in the draft FPDAM for Part 1.
I checked using a KWIC (key word in context) tool for OOXML.

First, from the latest draft FPDAM for Part 1,  I deleted all striked
text using MS Word.  Then I used the KWIC tool.  Thre are 246 occurrences 
of the string "/relationships/".  All of them occur within purl URIs,
which are new.

There are 231 occurrences of the string "/relationships/" in ISO/IEC
29500-1:2008.  Since 231 is smaller than 246, all of them appear 
to be changed by the draft FPDAM.

> For example, change 98 (p21/ PDF p32) s9.11.1 specifies extra linking
> relationships, but these are all in terms of old relationship identifiers.

You are talking about the draft FPDAM for Part 4.  Since this is about 
the conformance class "transitional", old relation types are prefectly 
fine.


Cheers,
Makoto