Clauses §8.3.5 and §

caroline arms caroline.arms at
Sat Jan 20 21:53:01 CET 2018

Murata-san, Rex, et al.

I have started to go through the draft.  Rather than wait to the
teleconference, I thought I would send emails on issues that are not simply
fixing typos or grammar as I come across them.

Clause §8.3.5 includes
"The path components are equivalent part names, as specified in §8.2.2

Should this point instead to § Part Name Equivalence and Integrity
in a Package?

I find § rather confusing and as I read it carefully, I realized
that "equivalence" as meant in §8.3.5 might need to incorporate more than
ASCII case-insensitive matching -- as equivalence is defined in the first
paragraph of §  In particular, I wondered whether equivalence after
application of NFC was also relevant.

Perhaps someone more expert than me can weigh in here.

I realize that § mixes "shall" and "should" -- presumably
deliberately.  That probably adds complexity here.

I have some other concerns about §, but I would need clarification
on what "equivalence" needs to be for §8.3.5 before I could make useful


PS:  Given the government shutdown, please be sure to send important emails
to my gmail account (or to the WG4 list).  I'm afraid the shutdown may play
havoc with my schedule, just as the threat of a shutdown has been leading
to inefficiency over the last few weeks.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:46 PM, Rex Jaeschke <rex at> wrote:

> Attached is WD3.3 of the OPC Spec.
> Once I got it back from Murata-san, here’s what I did:
>    1. I adopted all edits from WD3.2 and prior that had been resolved, so
>    they no longer show as tracked changes.
>    2. I kept all the comments that do not appear to have been resolved.
>    3. All Murata-san’s edits proposed since WD3.2 are shown as tracked
>    changes.
> I propose that at the March F2F meeting, we walk through this document and
> accept/reject the proposed edits, and resolve the issues raised in comments.
> Our most-recent discussion of a time line for this spec was to have a
> complete version at the end of the March 2018 meeting, and after minor
> changes from the F2F meeitng, to send it out for a 2-month CD ballot,
> closing before the June F2F. I now think this is quite unrealistic. There
> is a lot of work to do yet, and the decisions we make in March will need to
> be applied to the spec and then reviewed in the following teleconferences.
> We migth have a shot at getting a near-final draft for review of the June
> meeting.
> Murata-san has long pushed to get rid of informative Annex G [formerly H],
> “Guidelines for Meeting Conformance”, while I pushed for keeping it. And
> while we agreed to keep it, it still needed serious work to make it
> complete. Unfortunately, in its current state, many of its links and
> bookmarks are now badly broken, and will be non-trivial to reconstruct. So,
> reluctantly, I am dropping my objection to removing this Annex. As such, I
> have **not** done any work on repairing/updating this annex. If we drop
> this annex, we’ll need to decide what to do about all the [M], [O], and [S]
> markers spread throughout the normative text.
> In DR 13-0002, Murata-san proposed the addition of a new informative
> Annex, “Guidelines for Format Designers” (see”. As
> I cannot access this link, I have not added this annex. Murata-san, can you
> please circulate this proposed text?
> As Caroline will likely not attend the March meeting, I’d like to give her
> time to review and submit feedback before then. Likewise for Aarti’s
> experts (who likely will not attend that meeting).
> We’ll have a big job in March resolving all the open issues, so the more
> preparation you can do before then, the better. And, of course, we can do
> serious work on this on our January 31 teleconference.
> Rex
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the sc34wg4 mailing list