OPC: Part name integrity constraints

[MURATA Makoto]

Dear colleagues,

I am having a trouble in writing down part name integrity constraints.

Suppose that we have a part named /a/b.  Then, some names are
disallowed for other parts.  Which name is disallowed?

First, the published 29500-2 and my rewrite clearly
disallow

1) /a/b (the same name)
2) /A/b, /a/B, and /A/B (case differences)

Second, they also clearly disallow

3) /a/b/c and /a/b/c/d (derived from /a/b)

But we have to disallow more, for example:

4) /A/b/c (derived from /A/b, which is equivalent to /a/b)

Neither the published 29500-2 nor my rewrite are clear about this.

What is more, we have to introduce recommendations against canonical
equivalents and compatibility equivalents of Unicode.  This is because
some implementations always normalize file names.

Suppose that X is canonically or compatibility equivalent to Y, and
we already have a part named /X.  Then, we should discourage the
use of /Y.  What is more, we have to discourage the use of /Y/c,
which is derived from /Y!

I will try to provide better text by the Kyoto meeting, but please
review it carefully.

Regards,
Makoto