Revised document conformance text

[Chris Rae]

Thanks for all this, Murata-san - let's discuss further in Busan. To answer one of your points, though: this text does not delete clauses 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. It only modifies the "document conformance" clause. Rex sent me a private email telling me that the way I laid out the document may be confusing, so I think this means that Rex is correct, and it is indeed confusing.

Let's finalise this text in Busan. 

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp] 
Sent: 04 September 2011 01:29
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: Revised document conformance text

Chris,

Thank you for your hard work.  But I have a number of comments.
A modification to your draft is attached.

1) Deleted clauses 2.1, 2,2 and 2.3 of Part 1

Clause 2.3 (What ISO/IEC 29500 Specifies) is deleted.  I agree that this subclause should not occur in Clause 2 (Conformance).  But its content should probably be moved to either Introduction or Clasue 8 (Overview).  I see no problems in removing original Clauses 2.1 and 2.2.

2) Comments on Part 1 Document Conformance

First, I do not agree on the second bullet (A conforming document shall be of conformance class "Office Open XML Strict", as specified in
§22.9.2.2.) .  Subclause 22.9.2.2 does not define the conformance class "Office Open XML Strict" but merely defines a datatype for announcing conformance classes.  I think that we can safely get rid of this bullet, since document conformance defined in Part 1 is always "strict".  Rather, the sentence before these bullets should be changed as follows:

       A document shall be of conformance class Office Open XML
       Strict if the following holds

Second, "and further specified in §17, §18 and §19 respectively." in the fourth bullet should rather become a part of the third bullet and should not be restricted to these three clauses.

Third, I think a note for RELAX NG schema validity would help.

3) Comments on Part 4 Document Conformance

My comments on Part 1 Document Conformance also apply to Part 4 Document Conformance.  But I have two additional comments.

First, both Part 1 clauses defining OPC parts and Part4 clauses defining OPC parts should be listed.

Second, we cannot mandate validity of the VML drawing part, since its root element cannot be validated against XSD.


Cheers,
Makoto