PLEASE PROOF: TR 30114-1 Extensions of Office Open XML File Formats -- Part 1 Guidelines; FEEDBACK DUE BY 2016-04-05

[Rex Jaeschke]

See my replies inline. Rex


-----Original Message-----
From: caroline arms [mailto:caroline.arms at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 2:20 PM
To: Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>
Cc: SC 34 WG4 <e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org>; TC45 <e-TC45 at ecma-international.org>
Subject: Re: PLEASE PROOF: TR 30114-1 Extensions of Office Open XML File Formats -- Part 1 Guidelines; FEEDBACK DUE BY 2016-04-05

Rex,

I have a few small suggestions:

1.  Introduction
The title includes "Guidelines" (plural) and it seems odd to use the singular in the Introduction, particularly when it certainly isn't a single guideline.  I suggest replacing "a guideline" with "guidance" or "guidelines".

Rex> Agreed. I propose changing "a guideline" to " guidance ".


2.  Scope
I suggest replacing "provides" with "supports" -- the markup doesn't provide round tripping.

Rex> Agreed.


3.  Check for appropriate usage (including hyphenation) for round-trip, etc.  Probably want to be consistent about whether to use "round-trip" or "round tripping" as the noun form.  I prefer "tripping" but don't care about whether "round tripping" is hyphenated or not.  I'm certainly happy with "round-trip" as the adjective before "operations" and "scenarios."

Rex> Okay. Let's address each one during a walk-through of the document.


4.  2.3
I would move "easily" in "While ignorable constructs easily allow markup to be added to documents" yielding:
"While ignorable constructs allow markup to be added to documents easily"

Rex> Agreed.


5. 2.3
Perhaps the most technical point is a request for others to determine whether the the Choice block needs explicit treatment for the space between "two" and "formats."  The Fallback block does.

Rex> Let's discuss this on the call.


6.  2.4
>From my perspective, "(see extLst)"  would benefit from a section reference and definitely needs a reference to Part 1.  Perhaps ISO 29500-1, 18.2.10 which points to 18.2.7 where the most helpful explanation is.  However, I see that you dropped my proposed section references from 2.5.  I assume there was a reason for that.

Rex> I'm happy to have such references and don’t recall intentionally removing previous ones. However, as we're in the process of producing a New Part 1, we'll need to make sure we've got the correct clause numbers.


7.  2.5

Since you changed all my "would be" instances to "is" you also need to change the "was" in the sentence beginning "Thirdly" to "is"

Rex> Agreed.


8.  Bibliography
Link to Word Extensions to the Office Open XML (.docx) File Format (in the PDF version of the Guidelines) shows up with a slightly incorrect URL, with a space or %20 in /en-us/ The page appears to load OK, but is missing its left-hand navigation panel, which is where the content actually is.  This may be a function of the PDF generation, but the other three similar links are all fine.

Rex> Excellent catch! The superfluous %20 actually is in the DOCX file, and I'll remove that.


Hope this helps.

Rex> Thanks much Caroline for your usual thorough review.


  Caroline


On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com> wrote:
> From the WG4 Barcelona Meeting minutes:
>
> ----
> 7. Other Business
>
> Extensions; Part 1: Guidelines for extending OOXML
>
> This Part is complete; however, as it was converted from its original 
> form as a standard, to a TR, we probably need to check that it has the 
> correct format w.r.t Scope, Normative References, and such.
>
> Action: Rex will do whatever it takes editorially to complete this 
> Part, circulate it to WG4 members for a review, and then submit it for balloting.
> ----
>
> I have completed all the formatting. Here's what has changed since the 
> previous draft:
>
> 1. I set the date of the TR as 2016
> 2. As a TR contains no normative text, I deleted the Normative 
> References clause, moving its contents to the Bibliography 3. As the 
> TR points to undated standards (such as 29500-1/-2/-3), I removed the 
> specific clause/subclause references to those standards, as they can 
> change in newer editions 4. I confirmed that all other elements are 
> appropriate for a TR
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> From the SC 34 Beijing Plenary:
>
> ----
> Resolution 5: Progression of Project for TR 30114-1: Extensions of 
> Office Open XML File Formats -- Part 1: Guidelines
>
> SC 34 instructs its Secretariat to initiate a two-month PDTR ballot 
> when the text is submitted by the project editor. SC 34 delegates its 
> authority for resolution of comments and recommendation for further 
> processing to WG 4 until the next plenary.
>
> Unanimously approved
> ----
>
> I propose we all review this final draft over the next few weeks, and 
> that during the 2016-04-12 teleconference, we approve starting the PDTR ballot.
>
> Rex
>
>
>
>
>