Comments on Latest OPC draft -- Miscellaneous areas.

[Francis Cave]

Preprocessing:

 

The Oxford online dictionary defines the verb “preprocess”, and gives the following example of its use in the gerund form:

 

“some preprocessing of the concordances is a desirable prerequisite to editing”

 

See https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/preprocess. 

 

Francis

 

 

 

From: caroline arms <caroline.arms at gmail.com> 
Sent: 04 April 2018 18:46
To: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>
Cc: SC 34 WG4 <e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org>
Subject: Comments on Latest OPC draft -- Miscellaneous areas.

 

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/20180404/929f194b/attachment.html>