Clause 8 -- Miscellaneous minor suggestions:

[caroline arms]

Murata-san,

Miscellaneous minor suggestions for clause 8 follow.  I have tried to check
against a 1/22 copy of your draft that I downloaded as well as the draft
that was distributed be email -- which I printed out and on which I made my
first notes.  But I certainly don't guarantee to have finished with clause
8.  For one thing I haven't studied your new 8.5.2 -- although I believe it
will be helpful.

8.2.3  How does the sentence you added to the first paragraph (in 1/22
draft I have been using) relate to the last paragraph (a single sentence).

New sentence should probably have "for parts" not "to parts"  -- following
usage in final sentence.  Should final sentence use "document" instead of
"standard"?

8.3.1  I would drop "of" in "outside of a package"

8.4.1  I see
"Relative references in parts shall be resolved as specified in RFC 3987,
as extended in RFC 3987, §6.5."

Should the first RFC mentioned be 3986 (which has section 5. Reference
Resolution)?

I still find "a preprocessing" very awkward used as a noun -- here and in
Annex A.  Could we find a real noun to follow preprocessing?  Perhaps
"preprocessing approach" or "preprocessing sequence".

8.5.4.1 or 8.5.5.1 (depending on which draft I look at)
in "Relationship Part Associated with the Entire Package" it should be
"Relationships" -- plural.  I found two further instances of "Relationship
part" in the 1/22 draft that presumably need fixing too.

8.5.4 or 8.5.1 has heading Examples
It would be clearer to have "Examples of Relationship Markup"

It would also be clearer to precede the heading of each sublease with
"Example of "

In the first two examples there is the sentence, "Also, suppose that the
content of this package Relationships part is an XML document shown below:"
I would change "an XML document shown below" to "the XML document shown
below".

8.5.4.3 (using the numbering in the 1/22 draft I downloaded and printed)
you changed the first sentence in the Description box for the Type
attribute to "This attribute specifies the relationship type of a
relationship."  I would insert ", as a URI" or "as an IRI."  Otherwise, one
doesn't realize that it is a URI before the paragraph about comparison of
relationship types -- which doesn't make too much sense if you haven't
learned that the type is actually a URI or IRI.  I do realize that your new
clause 8.5.2 explains that, but  I still think it makes sense to add that
detail at the top of this table entry -- perhaps because in many contexts,
"types" are taken from a controlled vocabulary of strings.

     To be continued ...

      Caroline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20180122/2900c63e/attachment.html>