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

[Arms, Caroline]

This is mainly for Rex.

I see no problem with the merging of steps 3 and 4.  

Working from the WD0.93 document as modified by Murata-san and Jim and distributed by Jim, I suggest the following editorial changes.  I've copied to the list just in case anyone else is interested.

Section 3
misalignment of number for definition 3.7

Section 5
Referencing issues

Section 6, last sentence
Personally I wouldn't put commas round "rather" but leave that to you to decide.

Section 7.5
extra spacing after 2nd para

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.

Section 8  2nd page
"mce:AlternateConent"  is missing a "t"  Should be"mce:AlternateContent"

I found 
--
Suppose that an MCE processor is configured to preserve extension elements of an expanded name ("http://www.example.com/e1", "extensionElement").  Then, the MCE processor preserves the extensionElement element.  Therefore, MCE elements and attributes within it, namely mce:Ignorable="i1", mce:ProcessContent="i1:bar1", mce:MustUnderstand="e1", mce:AlternateConent, mce:Choice, and mce:Fallback, appear in the output document.
--
awkward to read -- the Suppose/Then/Therefore relationship was unclear at first pass.

What about
--
 If an MCE processor is configured to preserve extension elements of an expanded name ("http://www.example.com/e1", "extensionElement"), the MCE processor will preserve the extensionElement element.  Therefore, MCE elements and attributes within the extensionElement element, namely mce:Ignorable="i1", mce:ProcessContent="i1:bar1", mce:MustUnderstand="e1", mce:AlternateContent, mce:Choice, and mce:Fallback, will appear in the output document. 
--
 or
--
Suppose that an MCE processor is configured to preserve extension elements of an expanded name ("http://www.example.com/e1", "extensionElement").  Then, the MCE processor preserves the extensionElement element.  MCE elements and attributes within the element, namely mce:Ignorable="i1", mce:ProcessContent="i1:bar1", mce:MustUnderstand="e1", mce:AlternateContent, mce:Choice, and mce:Fallback, will therefore appear in the output document.
--

I would also introduce the terms "input document" and "output document" a little more explicitly in section 6 Overview.  Understanding that an MCE processor (conceptually) takes an input document and produces an output document is key to reading the rest of the document and worth stressing.

Section 9
Extra space after 2nd para
9.1
I would remove comma in "construct the output document, and further examine"  -- in new text from Murata-san

9.3
"Given" is confusing in the following sentence.
---
Given that an application configuration contains three namespaces, namely “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.
---

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?

9.4
In 3rd note after the list of cases, I might prefer to see "those in application-defined extension elements" as those within application-defined extension elements" or "those in application-defined extension elements occurring in the input document".  The potential confusion is between elements in documents and elements in namespaces.


   Hope this helps.   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: Jim Thatcher [Jim.Thatcher at microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 3:38 PM
To: MURATA Makoto; SC 34 WG4
Subject: RE: PLEASE PROOF: N 0271, 29500-3 (MCE) Revision, WD0.93

I reviewed Murata-san's changes and I agree that the two steps can be combined into one. I've suggested a handful of editorial changes in the attached draft. Those suggestions are made using change tracking with "Jim" as the identified user.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 8:53 PM
To: SC 34 WG4
Subject: Re: PLEASE PROOF: N 0271, 29500-3 (MCE) Revision, WD0.93

Dear colleagues,

In Delft, we agreed that elements/attributes not marked as ignorable do not have to be checked whether or not they belong to understood namespaces.  Based on this agreement, we simplified Step 4.  But we can go even further by merging Step 3 and Step 4.  Such merge allows @MustUnderstand be processed at a single step rather than two steps.

Here is a proposed rewrite.  It also addresses another concern:
top-down recursiveness is clearer.


Regards,
Makoto

2013/9/13 Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>:
> Please review this draft and post any comments to this email list.
>
> On the next teleconference (2013-10-15), we'll review all feedback and
> then push out WD1.0 for a public review. So please send along your
> concerns now rather than through the much more formal reporting
> required by the CD ballot, which will come later.
>
> Rex
>



--

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto