DR-10-0005: Shared MLs, File Properties: incorrect source relationship

[Shawn Villaron]

That would be fine from my perspective.  I just didn't want to make any assumptions.

From: Jesper Lund Stocholm [mailto:jesper.stocholm at ciber.dk]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:54 PM
To: Shawn Villaron; e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: RE: DR-10-0005: Shared MLs, File Properties: incorrect source relationship

Hi Shawn,

This is clearly a typo in the specification and I don't see any reason for it not being included in COR2.


Jesper Lund Stocholm
ciber Danmark A/S

From: Shawn Villaron [mailto:shawnv at microsoft.com]
Sent: 8. april 2010 06:09
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: DR-10-0005: Shared MLs, File Properties: incorrect source relationship

Good morning, afternoon and evening.

Here is my proposed response to this defect report.

Identification of the Problem
So the issue comes down to a conflict between Part 1 and Part 2 regarding the Relationship Type for the Core Properties part:


*         Part 1:   http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officedocument/2006/relationships/metadata/core-properties

*         Part 2:   http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/metadata/core-properties

>From my perspective this is clearly just a typo in Part 1.  Two observations justify this conclusion:

First, all OPC parts defined in Part 2 have the same root relationship name ( pages 90 and 91 ):

Description

Relationship Type

Core Properties

http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/metadata/core-properties

Digital Signature

http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/digital-signature/signature

Digital Signature Certificate

http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/digital-signature/certificate

Digital Signature Origin

http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/digital-signature/origin

Thumbnail

http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/metadata/thumbnail


Second, all OPC-defined parts as defined in Part 2, which are referenced in Part 1, share these same relationships, except for the Core Properties part:


*         Core Properties ( page 155)                         http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officedocument/2006/relationships/metadata/core-properties

*         Digital Signature ( page 149 )                       http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/digital-signature/signature

*         Digital Signature Origin ( page 148 )          http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/digital-signature/origin

*         Thumbnail ( page 163 )                                  http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/metadata/thumbnail

Which version of the Truth is Correct?
I think it is also a reasonable position that Part 2 should be the definitive definition of OPC parts, as opposed to Part 1.

Recommended Change
Based on these observations, I'd recommend we make the following changes to Part 1, Section 15.2.12.1:

15.2.12.1        Core File Properties Part
Content Type:

application/vnd.openxmlformats-package.core-properties+xml

Root Namespace:

http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/metadata/core-properties

Source Relationship:

http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officedocument/2006/relationships/metadata/core-properties
http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships/metadata/core-properties



And since this may create a breaking change for some implementations, I would recommend that we consider this a candidate for and amendment and not a corrigenda.

Naturally, I'd be very interested in feedback regarding this defect report.

Thanks,

shawn


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20100408/bc4b529a/attachment-0001.htm>