SUSPECT: DR-13-0009, "Parts 1 & 4 Edits Relating to the Part 3 Revision"

[John Haug]

Great material.  A few comments/questions.

1.
Part 1 clause 10 new text: "the Application-Defined Extension Elements extLst and ext specified by this Part"

We have that DR about extLst vs. ext that hasn't been closed yet. Dependent on that.  Not getting off into that discussion here. :)

2.
Part 1 clause 10 new text: "An MCE processor shall be configured so as not to process the content of any extension element specified by this Part of ISO/IEC 29500, i.e., specifically not to process any instance of an element or attribute in the MCE namespace for which an extension element is an ancestor element."

Isn't the requirement that an MCE processor suspend processing within an extension element something defined in Part 3 and ought not be within Part 1?  Does adding that sentence add potential confusion about the question we've previously resolved around a consuming application choosing to send understood extensions back into an MCE processor?  I'd suggest omitting it, but I want to better understand why it was added.

3.
Part 1 clause 18.2.7 new text: "that is discarded as a result of either MCE processing (when consuming)"

Is there a typo?  As a result of either MCE processing or what?

4.
Part 1 clause 18.2.7 suggested replacement for the highlighted example:
"[Example: If a spreadsheetML sheet contains several extensions within an extension list and the sheet no longer exists when producing the resulting markup document, the extensions associated with that sheet are not written out. end example]"

5.
Part 1 clause 18.2.10 highlighted text: "describe how markup producers and consumers must generate and consume markup documents containing application defined extension elements, including how to avoid and when to generate error conditions."

Perhaps, "..., including how to handle unexpected conditions."  Perhaps that clause in the sentence can be removed.

6a.
Part 1 clause L.7.3.4.2: "This doesn't seem to offer anything over and above what Part 3 has."

That raises the spectre of questioning the existence of other parts of the Primer.

6b.
"In any event. ISO editing rules do not permit a parent [sub]clause to contain text if it has subclauses."

This is a problem elsewhere in the Primer.  Should we scour it for this issue or just leave it be?  We're not doing a revision to Part 1 so can't we ignore those rules?

6c.
There are further comments about duplicated info.  Is there a hint that we ought to consider the entirety of L.7.3 Future Extensibility (pages 5001-5009)?


John

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Jaeschke [mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 9:22 AM
To: SC 34 WG4
Subject: SUSPECT: DR-13-0009, "Parts 1 & 4 Edits Relating to the Part 3 Revision"

When this DR was first submitted, it addressed only a small fraction of the larger problem. Eventually, Francis and I decided to broaden the scope of the DR to address the general problem. As such, we've given the DR a new title, rewritten the DR problem statement, and written a paper, N0266, to help resolve this DR.

Rex