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

[John Haug]

Hello all -
Please excuse my late review of this.  The past couple weeks have been a little rough.  I have marked up comments and changes using the document Jim sent out (which include Murata-san's comments and Jim's).  I also happened to incorporate many of the follow-up comments in this e-mail thread, but not all since some seem to require more info.

1. Re: Murata-san's 17 Sept question: "I started to wonder whether or not the following bullet in Step 3 (case 3) should be moved to Step 2."
I think it's slightly more preferable to point out that a non-ignorable and non-MCE child element under AlternateContent is a mismatch.  But, I like the cleanliness of the current breakdown.  I wouldn't argue much for or against either outcome.

2. Items not included from Caroline's 18 Sept e-mail:
	Section 5
	Referencing issues

	Just noticing that Murata-san has not added a Fallback element, etc. to first example as per Delft note.

	awkward to read -- the Suppose/Then/Therefore relationship was unclear at first pass.

3. Items not included from Murata-san's 21 Sept e-mail:
	I propose to remove the first example in Clause 8

Unless there are further revisions, perhaps we can all go through this doc together on the call on Tuesday, with Rex accepting/adding changes as appropriate.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Arms, Caroline [mailto:caar at loc.gov] 
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:55 AM
To: MURATA Makoto; SC 34 WG4
Subject: RE: PLEASE PROOF: N 0271, 29500-3 (MCE) Revision, WD0.93

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Office Open XML Part 3 - Markup Compatibility and Extensibility WD0 93+MM+JT+JH.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 135634 bytes
Desc: Office Open XML Part 3 - Markup Compatibility and Extensibility WD0 93+MM+JT+JH.docx
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20131010/5b35cdbe/attachment-0001.docx>