Some editorial details for Annex B

[caroline arms]

I've realized that I forgot to check one thing about the two versions of
ZIP64.  It turns out that Version 1 and version 2 are both described in
APPNOTE 6.2.0.  So perhaps we don't need to keep the references to APPNOTE
4.5.0 in Table B-1 but find another way to explain things.  Searching for
"Version 2" in APPNOTE 6.2.0 will find the relevant text (as well as
irrelevant stuff).

     Caroline

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:35 AM, caroline arms <caroline.arms at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Murata-san,
>
> Here are a few notes for Annex B.  However, I have not been through the
> annex in fine detail.  These are just things I ran into when exploring
> other ZIP-related issues.
>
> Your new title for the clause has a typo.  " Restrctions" is missing an
> "i" -- should be "Restrictions"
>
> B.1.  Need to qualify "packages" to make sure we are talking about OPC
> packages.
> ===
>
> Table B-1
>
> "from spec version 4.5" (which occurs at least twice in the table) is
> referring to https://www.pkware.com/documents/APPNOTE/APPNOTE-4.5.0.txt
> Do we need to add this to Normative References or Bibliography?  Do we
> need to explain this reference better?
>
> What seems to be the case is that use of ZIP64 is somewhat discouraged and
> only the version 1 is permitted.  This corresponds to ISO/IEC 21320-1.
> Should we make this clearer?
>
> "from spec version 6.2" is also used.  Should it be better explained?
>
> ===
>
> Table B-3
> " requirements for the Extract field " should be " requirements for the
> Version Needed to Extract field.
>
> ===
>
> As I pointed out in Clause 9 notes, we should consider whether "Extra
> field" should be "Extra Field" in most instances in Annex B.  APPNOTE uses
> "Extra Field" and "extra field"
>
>     Caroline (now turning to other, non-OOXML, matters)
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20180511/a1559ea9/attachment.html>