PLEASE PROOF: N 0271, 29500-3 (MCE) Revision, WD0.93

[Arms, Caroline]

Murata-san,

Since the examples in 7.5 are deliberately related, I do think that including a Fallback element in all three examples would be appropriate.

    Thanks.    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: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto [eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 8:25 AM
To: SC 34 WG4
Subject: Re: PLEASE PROOF: N 0271, 29500-3 (MCE) Revision, WD0.93

Caroline,

Thank you for your contributions to MCE.

Just noticing that Murata-san has not added a Fallback element, etc. to first example as per Delft note.  I strongly argued in the past that the first example needs to be a more complete example of AlternateContent.


Ah, I see your point.  You would like to have a Fallback element for all three examples
in subclause 7.5?


What about (for consistency with changes made in 9.4 examples)
---
Suppose that an application configuration contains the three namespaces, “http://www.example.com/n1”, “http://www.example.com/n2”, and “http://www.example.com/n3”. Then Choice #1, Choice #1-1, and Choice #2-1 are marked as selected, and Choice #2, Fallback #1, Fallback #1-1, and Fallback #2-1 are not.
---

and what about explaining what is marked if n3 is not in the application configuration?


Choice #1 , Fallback #1-1, and Fallback #2-1 are
marked as selected if the application configuration
contains “http://www.example.com/n1” and
“http://www.example.com/n2” but does not
contain “http://www.example.com/n3”.

Regards,
Makoto