Some details for clause 9

[caroline arms]

Murata-san et al.

These comments are of my usual nature, a few typos, some awkward wording,
and some places where I am puzzled.  This message does not address the
issues/questions in the list you circulated on April 17.  I believe my
suggestions below are independent of decisions that might be made on your
issues.   I do notice that you have already made many changes following
your suggestion 6 in that list.

     Talk to you soon.    Caroline

9.1
Assuming that Annex F has only minimal changes, as at present, I would
modify
[Note: See Annex F for additional discussion of the physical model. end
note]
    to read
[Note: See Annex F for additional discussion of physical model design
considerations. end note]

9.2.2
Not all the "following required components" are required.
Perhaps rewrite
"The package implementer shall define a physical package format with a
mapping for the following required components."
as
"The package implementer shall define a physical package format with a
mapping for the required components in the following table."

9.2.3.1
" *called* the Media Types stream" is slightly awkward because the stream
has the prefix *name* “/[Content_Types].xml”    [see 9.3.7]

Consider changing
"For all other physical package formats, the package should include an XML
stream called the *Media Types stream*. [S2.2] The Media Types stream shall
not be mapped to a part by the package implementer. [M2.1]"
  TO SOMETHING LIKE
" For all other physical package formats, the package should include an XML
stream referred to in this document as the *Media Types stream*. [S2.2] The
Media Types stream shall not be mapped to a part by the package
implementer. [M2.1] "

9.2.3.2.1
I would remove "contained" from the first sentence in 2nd para.   It's
superfluous.

Judging from https://www.iso.org/foreword-supplementary-information.html
I think that a couple of instances of "can" in this sub-clause should be
"may."

9.2.3.2.4
An Override element applies only to a single part.

Therefore, I would rewrite first sentence as:
An Override element shall specify a media type for a part that is not
covered by, or is not consistent with, the default mappings.

In Description for the ContentType Attribute, I would rewrite the third
sentence as:

* The specified media type shall apply to the part named in the attribute
PartName.

9.2.3.5

I am puzzled as to what should be done if step 5 yields an un-mapped part
name, e.g., if the document is edited and saved.

9.2.4.2
"Equvalence of prefix names and that of suffix names shall be determined"
  should be
"Equivalence of prefix names and of suffix names shall be determined"

9.2.5
First para., second sentence, I would insert "as" before "defined"

First para, third sentence.  "implementor" should be "implememter"

First para., last sentence. The meaning of "A physical package format or a
physical mapping is not required to support interleaving." is not
immediately clear.   "Is not required to support interleaving" is the
source of confusion. You could read the sentence as saying, "You don't need
a physical package format or a physical mapping if you want to support
interleaving." I suggest replacing with
"This document does not require a physical package format or physical
mapping to support interleaving."
===

3rd paragraph.
" An individual part shall be stored either in an interleaved or
non-interleaved fashion. The package implementer shall not mix interleaving
and non-interleaving for an individual part. [M2.11]"

I found the second sentence rather puzzling on first reading.  If a part
has any pieces, it would seem that it is stored in an interleaved fashion.
If the second sentence is saying anything in addition to the first, is it
not already covered by 9.2.4.3 and 9.2.4.5.?

This may be being picky.  It probably isn't doing any harm.
===

Paragraph after first diagram (btw, the text on the diagrams is essentially
unreadable when I print it.  But that was the case in published version
too.)

I would change "The image cannot be displayed until *all* of the page part
*and* the image part have been received."
  to
"The image cannot be displayed until the *entire* page part *and* the image
part have been received.

9.3.2
In new sentence, I would use "described in" rather than "described by"

9.3.3
" ZIP file-file name grammar " needs fixing.  BTW, there is no "grammar"
per se in the ZIP spec, which says,
" file name: (Variable)
          The name of the file, with optional relative path.
          The path stored should not contain a drive or
          device letter, or a leading slash.  All slashes
          should be forward slashes '/' as opposed to
          backwards slashes '\' for compatibility with Amiga
          and Unix file systems etc.  If input came from standard
          input, there is no file name field. "

"archive" in second sentence should probably be "file" assuming that usage
suggestion from Murata-san is accepted by the WG.

9.3.9
I think we need to make sure that "package" means "OPC package" in this
sub-clause.  Is the middle sentence necessary?  I don't know what it is
trying to say.


PS: I have some thoughts on Murata-san's questions/suggestions from his
earlier message, but think that they are probably more conveniently
addressed on the call.

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:50 PM, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>
wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> We will have another teleconf in 17 hours.  The biggest
> topic is the review of the latest OPC draft as well
> as recent emails about it.
>
> The URL of the OPC draft is
> https://1drv.ms/w/s!An5Z79wj5AZBgfpsdSK6syTHAhxagg
>
> Regards,
> Makoto
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20180601/2faa3b14/attachment.html>