DRAFT 0.91 of the MCE Spec

[Rex Jaeschke]

See my replies to Caroline's suggestions, in-line, Rex


-----Original Message-----
From: Arms, Caroline [mailto:caar at loc.gov] 
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 8:45 PM
To: Rex Jaeschke; SC 34 WG4
Subject: RE: DRAFT 0.91 of the MCE Spec

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?

Rex: Done.


"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.

Rex: Added a comment re this in WD0.92.


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

Rex: Done.


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."

Rex: Added a comment re this in WD0.92.


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.

Rex: See responses from Murata-san and Francis on 2013-08-14.


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

Rex: Added a comment re this in WD0.92.


Page 12.  Need space after period in first line.

Rex: Done.


Page 15.  Missing closing quotes in second line of 8.5

Rex: Done.


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.

Rex: Noted.


Page 21.  

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

Rex: Noted as a comment in WD0.92.


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

Rex: I can't find this. (I'm flying a bit blind as your page numbers don't
match those in the PDF I distributed.)


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.

Rex: Noted.


Page 23.  Awkward page-breaks

Rex: Noted; I'll investigate this.


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.

Rex: Done.


Annex A.
Page 29.
Final "Luminance attributes" should be singular.

Rex: Done.


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

Rex: Done.


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

Rex: Done.


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."

Rex: Done.


    Caroline