DR 09-0168 ? OPC: No mechanism to distinguish ECMA-376:2006 from IS 29500

Chris Rae Chris.Rae at microsoft.com
Thu Nov 18 19:23:27 CET 2010

As far as my understanding goes, the informative Appendix A existed just as a sort of guide about how to turn a Unicode string into a part name. The Unicode strings themselves never ended up as part names. I'm not quite sure what the purpose of the Annex truly was, but I don't think it allows non-ASCII part names to actually exist, it just gives you a guide on how to turn your non-ASCII string into a valid part name.

My thinking re. the part 2 changes was to build them onto some sort of Part 4 section saying "these modifications need to happen to part 2". It does unfortunately highlight the problem with Part 4 being in an addendum type of style, though.


-----Original Message-----
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp] 
Sent: 17 November 2010 20:23
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: DR 09-0168 ? OPC: No mechanism to distinguish ECMA-376:2006 from IS 29500

> http://cid-c8ba0861dc5e4adc.office.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documen
> ts/2009/DR-09-0168.docx
> In my notes I've written that in Tokyo we decided I'd look into whether we could alter Part 4 to disbar non-ASCII part names, thereby making it homogenous with ECMA-376 and removing the requirement for Transitional IS 29500 to be differentiated from ECMA-376.


I do not think that we have to borrow some text from Part 2 and reformulate it.  Part 4 can simply specify its own restrictions on OPC.  

But exactly what is the difference between the first edition Ecma OPC and ISO/IEC 29500-2:2008?  I am comparing these two documents, but I do not quite understand the difference.  "9.1.1  Part Names" has been significantly expaned but Appendix A "Resolving Unicode Strings to Part Names " existed from the beginning.  One could argue that the use of non-ASCII characters is allowed from the beginning.  I am totally confused.


More information about the sc34wg4 mailing list