DR 09-0321 ? OPC: Relationships Markup

[Chris Rae]

Hi Murata-san - it's possible there's some other text somewhere which mentions non-ASCII OPC part names, but I don't think they seem to be allowed in IS 29500 as it stands now. Changing the standard now would mean that newer implementations could create IS 29500-compliant files which older implementations couldn't read, despite their content being semantically identical. From the MSFT point of view, I think we'd always have to encode non-ASCII part names just so that Office 2007, Mobile, Mac et cetera could read the files without patching.

I'm not completely against changing this now, but I'm inclined to think that document creators would avoid using the larger character set just so that their files could be opened in IS 29500:1-compliant applications.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp] 
Sent: 14 August 2010 08:49
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: DR 09-0321 ? OPC: Relationships Markup

> Given that part names are not something that's ever presented to 
>application users, I would argue that using URIs will make 
>implementation easier, allow IS
>29500 files to be parsed by a wider range of existing applications and 
>save disk space (although in the overall scheme of things the last one 
>doesn't matter much).

For the record, Japan asked for non-ASCII OPC part names in the DIS
ballot, believed that they were allowed, and approved DIS29500.    I
remember I spoke with Korea about this and they agreed.

Cheers,
Makoto