search

sc34wg4 / opcRevision

Revision of ISO/IEC 29500-2 (Open Packaging Conventions)
1 stars 0 forks source link

Foreword: Proposed addition #49

Closed RexJaeschke closed 4 years ago

RexJaeschke commented 4 years ago

US-074 |   |   |   | Ge | As the foreword states, “This fourth edition preserves all previous functionality and adds no new functionality.”  The changes since ISO/IEC 29500-2:2012 include corrections and many clarifications.  All editions of ISO/IEC 29500-2 have permitted non-ASCII characters in names for parts in a compliant package, but this edition provides more complete detail on how to handle them, based on the IETF RFC for Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs).  Where appropriate, normative references have been updated to use undated or more recent versions of other standards.

Please consider.

murata2makoto commented 4 years ago

In the foreword, we have a bulleted list of changes. One bullet is:

Clause 8 (Abstract package model) has been completely rewritten. In particular, (1) pack IRIs are defined in this clause rather than in an annex, (2) a new subclause, "Resolving relative references", was added; (3) part Relationship parts and package Relationship parts are distinguished; and (4) base IRIs are clearly defined.

How about "(5) handling of non-ASCII characters in part names have been clarified on the basis of RFC 3987"?

murata2makoto commented 4 years ago

Should we also add "(6) Where appropriate, normative references have been updated to use undated or more recent versions of other standards."?

franciscave commented 4 years ago

I agree with Murata-san's proposed additions to the Foreword, but they should be new bullet-points, and not be included in the numbered sub-list under the Clause 8 bullet-point. Murata-san's point (6) should be the first bullet-point, as it relates to Clause 2. Murata-san's point (5) relates most strongly, I believe, to Clause 7, so should come immediately before the Clause 8 bullet-point.

murata2makoto commented 4 years ago

@franciscave

My (6) should indeed be the first bullet-point. We should also clearly state that this is about Clause 2.

My (5) is about Clause 7 in the new text but about Clause 8 in the previous edition.

RexJaeschke commented 4 years ago

WG4 approved on 2020-08-26.

The new (6) will become the first bullet in the existing list. (5) stays as (5). We'll recast the new entries words along the lines of the existing ones.