Notes on latest draft of Part 2

[MURATA Makoto]

Caroline,

2014-08-13 23:38 GMT+09:00 Arms, Caroline <caar at loc.gov>:
> All (particularly Rex and Murata-san),
>
> As promised, I have been reading the June MM0619 draft by Murata-san that is on the Assembla site.
>
> Since most of the changes relate to moving most of Annex A into clause 8, I will send notes for clause 8 and Annex A separately -- not immediately.  Below (and attached as a text file) are notes on the other clauses.
>
> 1.  Scope
>
> General editorial comments:
> (a) This clause shows several significant deletions.  Somewhat equivalent text is in 7. Overview.  We should check how things will look in the ISO preview (online browsing platform).  Scope will show but I'm not sure that clause 7 would.  We should check whether any text deleted from Scope should be recovered to get relevant words into either Scope or Overview.

The scope is not for expressing requirements.  It is
for describing what the standard does.  I think that the
package model, physical model, and the use of MCE
have to be eliminated from the scope clause.  All of
them are details.

I agree that some of the deleted text might be useful
in Overview.


> (b) The ... bulleted list seems to be temporary.  It definitely needs work for grammatical consistency.

True.  I'm not the right person for providing
good English.  Help!

>
> Typo:  "dissiminated" should be "disseminated"
>
> 2.  Conformance
>
> General editorial comment:
> (a) Could do with improved distinction between statement about conformance for OPC (this part) and conformance in the multi-part standard.

I'm wondering if this clause should be simply deleted.  I will
write more about this in another e-mail.

> 3.  Normative References
> Presumably should update the Augmented BNF RFC 4234 to RFC 5234, since 4234 is obsolete.  [Note: New text from Murata-san refers to RFC 2234 (an even older obsolete version) and uses EBNF rather than ABNF.  Presumably all references should use RFC 5234 and "ABNF."]

Yes, you are right.  Thanks!

> 4.  Terms and Definitions
> I notice that some ISO standards have Notes associated with definitions.  If this is acceptable practice we might consider whether any of the terms warrant a note as clarification.
>
> Clearly this a clause to revisit when the rest of the document is done.  The first term confused me but I assume we will make a holistic pass through Terms and Definitions later and haven't reviewed this clause in detail.

We have done some changes to this clause already, but I
also think that we have to revisit it when the rest is done.

> access style
> style in which local access or networked access is conducted
>
> Proposed replacement: style in which local or networked access to a package is conducted
> [Aside: Personally, I might use "mode" rather than "style", but I assume we  are only addressing DRs and significant shortcomings in the document.]
>
> Murata-san introduced the terms NFC and NFD for the two normalization approaches applied commonly for UNICODE.  We should either spell out in full and prefix with "Unicode" (my preference) or add to Terms and Definitions.

Agreed.

[snip]

Regards,
Makoto