Re: Clauses §8.3.5 and §8.2.2.3

[MURATA Makoto]

Caroline,

Thank you for staring to proofread the draft.  First of all,
I am trying to respond to each of the remaining comments.  My
latest draft is available at

https://1drv.ms/w/s!An5Z79wj5AZBgfpsdSK6syTHAhxagg

I have done many changes.  In particular, I added 8.5.2 (Relationship).
It is a collection of definitions copied from Clause 4.

Regards,
Makoto

2018-01-21 5:53 GMT+09:00 caroline arms <caroline.arms at gmail.com>:

> 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
> [M7.3]"
>
> Should this point instead to §8.2.2.3 Part Name Equivalence and Integrity
> in a Package?
>
> I find §8.2.2.3 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 §8.2.2.3.  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 §8.2.2.3 mixes "shall" and "should" -- presumably
> deliberately.  That probably adds complexity here.
>
> I have some other concerns about §8.2.2.3, but I would need clarification
> on what "equivalence" needs to be for §8.3.5 before I could make useful
> suggestions.
>
>     Caroline
>
> 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 rexjaeschke.com> 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 https://goo.gl/gzIX9y)”.
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20180121/e1a44f3b/attachment.html>