Comments on Latest OPC draft -- Miscellaneous areas.

[caroline arms]

Sorry about the blank message I sent recently.  Operator error with my
mouse!!

This batch of comments relate to annexes and the bibliography.

     Caroline

Annex A.
2nd para
This preprocessing is neither required nor recommended.

Issue 1   I have never heard of "preprocessing" being used as a noun.
Word's grammar-checking function objects to it, but not because it is wants
to see a hyphen, although I would prefer to see one.  I suggest
"pre-processing outline" or "pre-processing procedure" or "pre-processing
suggestion."

Issue 2
I immediately think:    if it is "not recommended" why is it here at all?

I assume "recommended" is a term of art, but we really need to change the
wording here somehow.  Perhaps one of the other native English speakers has
a good suggestion.  I might say something like.

This pre-processing outline is not required.  It is an example of an
appropriate sequence of steps.

The pre-processing suggestion has eight steps

Annex G.
There was no Annex in the 2012 published edition of Part 2 devoted to
streaming consumption.  Perhaps we could give a hint to the fact that the
requirements were in the Package model clause.  I'm puzzled about the
relationship of Annex F and Annex G and wondering whether the statement
about dropping requirements associated with streaming consumption could be
slipped in to Annex F instead.


Former Annex H: Guidelines for Meeting Conformance
Is it time to go through the old Annex H and identify any requirements that
are not incorporated into the current OPC draft.  I'm thinking about this
because of the comments in 8.5.3.1 where Murata-San says he doesn't
remember why the requirement that was re-iterated in Annex H at M1.25 was
dropped.


Bibliography item 1.  the URL https://www.w3.org/TR/charmod-norm/ currently
refers to a W3C Working Draft  from 07 April 2016.  However, when there is
a new published draft, it will point to that.  If we want to ensure that we
keep pointing to the 2016 published draft, we should use
http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-charmod-norm-20160407/
FYI, there is a more recent, un-published draft.  See
http://w3c.github.io/charmod-norm/ -- which was dated 25 February 2018 when
I checked today.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20180404/557c67df/attachment.html>