Comments from Jacques D. on ODF Part3: Packages

Review of specification: ODF Part3: 
Packages

(by TAB member: Jacques Durand)

 

1-Introduction:

- I would not characterize the gray boxes as 
"non-normative", since they 

often re-state or re-word normative material they 
cross-reference.

That could be confusing to readers.

Instead, why not introduce them as "mark-up 
reminders" or "mark-up user notes"

 

2- Editorial:  Section 2.7

Update:

"then the relative IRI shall interpreted as a 
package file entry reference."

as:

"then the relative 
IRI shall be interpreted as a package file entry reference."

 

3- Editorial: 
Section 2.7

Update:

"Note: File whose relative path starts with 
"META-INF/ are..."

as:

"Note: Files the relative path of which starts with 
"META-INF/ are..."

 

4- Section 5: it looks like at the end of each 
subsection, a gray box

should wrap up almost every last 
sentence.

 

5- Conformance Clause:

- correctly identifies the Conformance targets 
(packages, producer, consumer)

- unclear meaning of the labeling "PD1", "PD1.1", 
etc.

- general comment: many COnf clause statements 
appear to just be repeats 

of what the normative specification already says, 
e.g:

(PD1.1) It shall be a ZIP file, as defined by 
[ZIP].

This is already made clear in Section 2.1 which 
says: "This package is a Zip file [ZIP]", 

(which probably should be reworded more formally as 
"An ODF package shall be a Zip file [ZIP]")

Everything under PD1.2 should not need be restated 
in the conformance clause and should belong

to the main spec body. Instead, the conf clause 
should make meta-level statements about which

sections in the specification the "ODF package" is 
particularly concerned with, and must adhere to.

(see conformance guidelines 
http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html).

- the conf clause may not have much to say for 
"package" besides meta-level references to normative

body, and is more useful for Producer and 
Consumer.

- what is the relationship between "conforming 
producer" and "conforming extended producer"?

does conformance to producer implies automatically 
conformance to extended producer (if yes, say so).