DRAFT 0.91 of the MCE Spec

[Arms, Caroline]

Rex et al,

I hope to be on tomorrow's call, but thought it worth sending my thoughts anyway, since several of the comments are small editorial suggestions and may not warrant bringing up in the call.

Foreword, Page v

Might bullet 1 usefully mention the inclusion of discussion of interactions among semantic constructs and/or the processing model?

"Removal of namespace subsumption" seems unclear to me.  Is it supposed to mean removal of mention of "namespace subsumption"? Or disallowing use of namespace subsumption?

Also in relation to namespace subsumption, I remember something in the minutes from the face-to-face in Bellevue about its use by Chuck and WG4's agreement that his implementation with namespace subsumption is conformant.

Page 1.
Yet newer scope suggested by Murata-san in email.

Page 3.  I agree with Murata-san that "and further conforms to the requirements of a markup specification" is not relevant and should be dropped from the definition of markup consumer.  Similarly markup producer definition should probably be adjusted to "tool that can generate a markup document that conforms to a markup specification."

When you look at "markup specification" you suddenly see that this generic statement is actually specific to "this part of ISO/IEC 29500."  If there is need to specialize the term to his degree, I would prefer the use of a term that included reference to MCE in some way.  That is, if the specialized term is needed at all.  Personally, I can see no reason for the limitation to this part of ISO/IEC 29500 -- but someone else need to check that out.  In places where the discussion is specific to MCE use, that seems clear from the context.

Page 7.  Francis suggests "disregard" is too strong in final bullet.  I agree with his reasoning.

Page 12.  Need space after period in first line.

Page 15.  Missing closing quotes in second line of 8.5

I think it would be good to have a typical example (i.e. one with Choice and Fallback elements), not just edge cases.  Or to refer to Annex A, Example A.5.

Page 21.  

Para 1.
Earlier, "signal" was changed to "indicate" -- by John, I think.   Should that be done throughout section 10?

Para 2.
"configuration" in first sentence looks as though it should be plural.

Page 22.
Example starting on page 22 is essentially two examples in one -- from reading the text.  I think it would be clearer to start with the more typical example and follow by the related edge case that the markup chunk represents.

Page 23.  Awkward page-breaks

Page 26.
Point 5. Reads awkwardly wrt singular and plural.  Perhaps better:

Each Ignorable and ProcessContent attribute shall be removed unless it belongs to an application-defined extension element or its descendant.


Annex A.
Page 29.

Final "Luminance attributes" should be singular.

Page 30.
First para.  Two occurrences of "attributes" need to be singular.

Page 32 and following.  Mentions of "Step 4" need clarification and/or reference.

Page 34.
"Both the namespace for version 2 and that for version 2 are declared as ignorable." should presumably have "version 3" in place of the second "verson 2."

    Caroline

Caroline Arms
Library of Congress Contractor
Co-compiler of Sustainability of Digital Formats resource
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/

** Views expressed are personal and not necessarily those of the institution **
________________________________________
From: Rex Jaeschke [rex at RexJaeschke.com]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 10:39 AM
To: SC 34 WG4
Subject: DRAFT 0.91 of the MCE Spec

Attached is the latest draft of the MCE Spec (29500-3). I've named it WG4 N
0264, and it contains the following:

1. The proposed edits from Murata-san in his mail, "Draft WD1 v0.9 of the
revised MCE spec. ..." on 2013-07-09.
2. The proposed edits from John H. in his mail, "Draft WD1 v0.9 of the
revised MCE spec. ..." on 2013-07-11.
3. Edits made by Rex as a result of decisions made at the Bellevue F2F
meeting.

BTW, soon after the F2F meeting, I distributed Draft 0.90 via email. I have
since named that WG4 N 0263.

In the next day or so, I'll post a number of messages to this list
suggesting how members might spend their time reviewing the proposed changes
in 0.91.

Regards,

Rex