Clause -- Relationships Part -- a couple of editorial issues

MURATA Makoto eb2m-mrt at
Sat Jan 27 09:04:07 CET 2018


Your second comment surprised me and I agree!  In Parts 1
and 4, we always have a table for each part.  Such a table
shows the root namespace and media type for a given part.
In Part 2, we have a table for relationships parts and no such tables
for other parts defined in OPC.  Rather, we have Annex E,
which define media types, root namespaces, and relationship

I agree that we should be consistent.  For each part
defined in OPC, I think that we should introduce a table,
which defines media types and root namespaces (if any).

In Parts 1 and 4, relationship types definitions are embedded
in prose.  Annex E in OPC provides a single table, but
it does not clearly show which relationship type has
which source.

I would like to discuss this topic in the teleconf.


2018-01-27 1:04 GMT+09:00 caroline arms <caroline.arms at>:

> Murata-san and Rex,
> 1.  Currently 8.5.3 and have the same heading. Is that OK?
> 2.  I don't see a corresponding table for any of the other Parts.  See
> 10.2 for the Core Properties Part, for example.
> 3.  If we do want the table, the capitalization in the top left cell of
> the table needs to be fixed.  But should it be "Media Type" (using title
> capitalization) or Media type (just initial cap.).  If the latter, then
> "Namespace" in cell below should probably be "namespace.   I suspect
> capitalization in lefthand (label) columns needs to be checked throughout.
>      Caroline
> PS This is based on numbering in Murata-san's latest online draft.


Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the sc34wg4 mailing list