ࡱ > M bjbj== " W W J F ` l
0 0 0 8 0 1 D{ 2 \4 " ~4 ~4 ~4 9 H ;: W: z z z z z z z $ ~ 6 z -
g: 9 " 9 g: g: z A= ~4 ~4 S z A= A= A= g: ~4
~4 z A= g: z A= v A= > t l
J
y ~4 2 QXk 2$ 0 g: gv 6 y { 0 D{ v * A= y A=
ISO/IEC Committee Draft 18023-2
US NB Comments
The US votes to disapprove ISO/IEC FCD 18023-2 with the following comments. Incorporation of these comments would change the US position to Approve.
General
US_G001:
Problem: The terms "external elements" and "encoding elements" seem to be used interchangeably or their use is not clear-cut. Clause 4.3 talks about "external elements". The term "external element" is not encountered again until Annex A in A.2 Encoding elements where it occurs in the 3rd paragraph starting "For a binary encoding". However, in the previous paragraph pertaining to character-based encoding, the terminology "encoding element" is used in the same manner as "external encoding" is used for binary encoding. In clause 5 only "encoding element: is mentioned.
Recommendation: The terminology needs to be used consistently. The differences between "external element" and "encoding element" need to be made clear. If they are the same, use only one term.
US_G002:
All Clauses
Problem: The URL ( HYPERLINK "http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/ISO_IEC_18023-2_Ed1.html" http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/ISO_IEC_18023-2_Ed1.html) appearing at the bottom of all clauses does not exist on the ISO server.
(NOTE: The similar link in ISO/IEC 18025 brings up a note on the ISO server that states: This location will contain the final text of ISO/IEC 18025 Ed.1 once the standard is approved.)
Recommendation: Ensure link works before publication
US_G003:
All pages should be validated using the W3C validation. For example:
Clause 5 does not pass W3C validation. The results are as follows:
This page is not Valid HYPERLINK "http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/" HTML 4.01 Transitional!
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser.
Line HYPERLINK "http://validator.w3.org/check" \l "line-225#line-225" 225, column 375: document type does not allow element "SUP" here ( HYPERLINK "http://validator.w3.org/docs/errors.html" \l "not-allowed-contained" explain...).
... >+
^
Line HYPERLINK "http://validator.w3.org/check" \l "line-228#line-228" 228, column 258: document type does not allow element "SUP" here ( HYPERLINK "http://validator.w3.org/docs/errors.html" \l "not-allowed-contained" explain...).
... >+
^
Line HYPERLINK "http://validator.w3.org/check" \l "line-233#line-233" 233, column 111: document type does not allow element "SUP" here ( HYPERLINK "http://validator.w3.org/docs/errors.html" \l "not-allowed-contained" explain...).
... >+
^
Line HYPERLINK "http://validator.w3.org/check" \l "line-238#line-238" 238, column 244: document type does not allow element "SUP" here ( HYPERLINK "http://validator.w3.org/docs/errors.html" \l "not-allowed-contained" explain...).
... >+
^
US_G004:
Reference to ISO/IEC 18023-1 should be made consistent with ISO/IEC 18023-2. For example, in the 5th and 6th paragraphs, ensure the references to 5.3.3.108 and 5.3.3.63 of ISO/IEC 18023-1 are current. The version of 18023-1 last issued assigned different subclause numbers to these data types.
Technical
Clause 4: Concepts
US_T001: Figure 4.1
Problem: Even though the text says " transmittal may be expressed as one or more files", the figure seem to imply that there must be at least two files for there to be any content. That is, the root file does not have any content other than structure information. However, Clause 5.2.4 Transmittal root file grammar does clearly indicate that the root file does contain s.
Recommendation: Clarify figure or add additional text to make clear.
Editorial
Foreword
US_E001:
Problem: The 1st and 2nd paragraphs reference the ISO web site one currently ends with a /, and the other does not.
Recommendation: Make these references consistent
Clause 1 Scope
US_E002:
Problem: Title of clause is incorrect
Recommendation: Change the clause title from Part 2: Abstract transmittal to read Part 2: Abstract transmittal format.
Clause 2 Normative references
US_E003:
Problem: The URL ( HYPERLINK "http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/ISO_IEC_18023-1_Ed1.html" http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/ISO_IEC_18023-1_Ed1.html) provided for I18023-1 does not exist on the ISO server.
Recommendation: Before publishing check URL to ensure it exists
Clause 3 Definitions
US_E004:
Problem: 18023-1 is reference incorrectly
Recommendation: In the 1st sentence, change the reference from HYPERLINK "http://www.sedris.org/wg8home/Documents/18023-2_FCD/Clause2--References.html" \l "I18023_1" ISO/IEC 18023-1 to read HYPERLINK "http://www.sedris.org/wg8home/Documents/18023-2_FCD/Clause2--References.html" \l "I18023_1" Part 1 of HYPERLINK "http://www.sedris.org/wg8home/Documents/18023-2_FCD/Clause2--References.html" \l "I18023_1" ISO/IEC 18023.
US_E005: 3.2 encoded transmittal
Problem: There is a . (period) at the end of the definition. This is the only one with a ..
Recommendation: Remove for consistency.
US_E006: 3.3 transmittal
Problem: There is an extra line between the definition and the reference.
Recommendation: Remove the line
US_E007: 3.3 transmittal
Problem: 18023-1 is reference incorrectly
Recommendation: Change the reference from part 1 of ISO/IEC 18023 to read Part 1 of ISO/IEC 18023 (capitalization).
US_E008: 3.3 transmittal
Problem: The reference is not linked.
Recommendation: Add link
Clause 4 Concepts
US_E009: 4.3 Architecture, 1st para., 2nd sentence
Problem: Reads better if "throughout" is replaced "with "in".
Recommendation: Make change requested
US_E010: 4.3 Architecture, 2nd para., 1st sentence
Problem: Sentence structure awkward.
Recommendation: Change " inclusion of format specific additional data necessary" to inclusion of additional format specific additional data necessary"
Clause 5 Transmittal Structure
US_E011: 5.2.3
Problem: Through out the clause the phrase " The production rule for" is in the wrong point size. Looks like the lead-in sentence from 5.2.3-5.2.7 have the same problem.
Recommendation: Make size conform to the rest of the clause.
US_E012: 5.2.6
Problem: Change the subclause title from Transmittal image file grammar to read Transmittal image data file grammar
Rationale: for consistency with other subclause titles and the production rules they provide.
Clause 6 Conformance
US_E013: 6 Table 6.1
Problem: subclause 6.3 is missing from table of contents
Recommendation: Add subclause 6.3 to the table of contents.
US_E014: 6.2.2.a, 6.2.2.b
Change the references to HYPERLINK "http://www.sedris.org/wg8home/Documents/18023-2_FCD/Clause2--References.html" \l "I18023_1" part 1 of ISO/IEC 18023 to read HYPERLINK "http://www.sedris.org/wg8home/Documents/18023-2_FCD/Clause2--References.html" \l "I18023_1" Part 1 of ISO/IEC 18023 (capitalization).
US_E015: 6.3
Problem: Font size for the title is not consistent with other subclauses
Recommendation: Check all font sizes
US_E016: 6.3.a
Problem: Sentence wording
Recommendation: Change shall only encode to read only encode (the sentence before ends in a shall).
Annex A
US_E017: Through out clause
Problem: Through out the clause there are places where the wrong font size is used.
Recommendation: Correct the font size in the following locations:
A.2, 2nd paragraph, last sentence
A.2, 3rd paragraph, begins "For a binary"
A.4 1st paragraph
US_E018: A.2
Problem: Reference and subclause title are different
Recommendation: Change the reference to 5.2.2 Encoding element grammar to read 5.2.2 ENCODING ELEMENT grammar, as per the actual subclause ti t l e .
J a p a n N a t i o n a l B o d y C o m m e n t s o n S E D R I S P a r t 2 A b s t r a c t t r a n s m i t t a l f o r m a t
F i n a l C o m m i t t e e D r a f t I S O / I E C 1 8 0 2 3 - 2 0 ( I S O / I E C J T C 1 / S C 2 4 N 2 5 5 9 / W G 8 N 0 3 4 9 )
J a p a n v o t e s t o D I S A P P R O V E F C D 1 8 0 2 3 - 2 f o r t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n b e l o w . A c c e p t a n c e o f t h e s e r e asons and appropriate changes in the text will change the vote to APPROVAL.
JAPAN_T001:
0.2 Design goals
The expression The design shall leverage existing standards is awkward. The term leverage should be replaced.
JAPAN_T002:
1 Scope
The sentence Actual encodings (EXAMPLE binary encoding) are specified in other parts of ISO/IEC 18023is not appropriate because it suggests that conformant users cannot use some actual encoding unless it is standardized formally. The sentence should be changed to Actual encodings are specified in other parts of ISO/IEC 18023 (e.g., in Part 3) or registered according to ISO/IEC 9973, Procedures for registration of graphical items.
or something like.
JAPAN_T003:
3 Definitions
There are two writing styles to begin the definitions --- one with indefinite articles (e.g., 3.1) and the other without indefinite articles (e.g., 3.4). They should be unified.
JAPAN_T004:
4.2.2 SEDRIS transmittal files
The term object files used here should be changed to content files to be consistent with other places (e.g., Fig.1).
JAPAN_T005:
4.4 Compression
The sentence If an encoding allows compression, only loss-less compression techniques shall be usedis not appropriate because it suggests that lossy compressions (e.g., JPEG) shall not be used in image data files. It should be restated more carefully or a note should be attached.
UK National Body Comments on
SEDRIS Part 2 Abstract transmittal format
Final Committee Draft ISO/IEC 18023-2
(ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 N2559)
(ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 WG 8 N0349)
The UK votes to DISAPPROVE CD 18023-2 for the reasons given below. Acceptance of these reasons and appropriate changes in the text will change the vote to APPROVAL.
General
UK_G001:
Entire document
There is a lack of precision in the use of capitalization and in the proper use of notation, such as <---> to denote an element in the abstract syntax. Here is one example:
In 5.2.2: An ENCODING ELEMENT is one that is not part of the data...
In A.2: An encoding element is encoding-specific and will depend on the type of encoding being developed. Encoding elements are defined in HYPERLINK "C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\SEDRIS Part 2 FCD\Clause5--Transmittal%20Structure.html" \l "EncodingElementGrammar" 5.2.2 Encoding element grammar.
The correct form (used in neither of the above examples) is . References to elements of the grammar and their appropriate capitalization need to be corrected throughout the document.
UK_G002:
Entire document
Because SEDRIS Part 2 depends on SEDRIS Part 1, any decision to advance SEDRIS Part 2 beyond FCD should be deferred and be made at the same editing meeting that recommends the advancement of SEDRIS Part 1 to FDIS.
Technical
1. Scope
UK_T001:
1 Scope, second sentence
The example is not in the correct format. It is also in a different font. The word actual is not needed since an abstract syntax is not an un-actual encoding.
Instead of:
Actual encodings (EXAMPLE binary encoding) are specified in other parts of ISO/IEC 18023.
say:
Part 3 of this International Standard specifies a binary encoding of this abstract syntax.
3. Definitions
UK_T002:
3, first sentence
The callout to part 1 in the first sentence is not consistent with callouts elsewhere in the document:
For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in HYPERLINK "C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\SEDRIS Part 2 FCD\Clause2--References.html" \l "I18023_1" ISO/IEC 18023-1 and the following apply.
UK_T003:
3.1 element
A definition should not begin with an article.
UK_T004:
3.2 encoded transmittal
A definition should neither begin with an article nor end with a period.
UK_T005:
3.2 encoded transmittal
The phrase that has been encoded using a technique as defined in this part of ISO/IEC 18023 is not clear. What does technique mean? Is it one technique or all the techniques in this part? Recommend that the phrase is simply replaced by that has been encoded as specified in this part of ISO/IEC 18023.
UK_T006:
3.3 transmittal
DRM class instances is not the best, formal term. In fact, DRM class instance as a concept seems not to be formally defined, even in Part 1. This can be expressed more formally and consistently. In 5.2.8, for example, the text says A DRM object represents an instance of a DRM class.
Furthermore, this definition conflicts with 18023-1 where the same definition is given for a SEDRIS transmittal
4 Concepts
UK_T007:
4.2.1, second sentence
Is it technically correct to say The abstract transmittal format is a conceptual file format when a single transmittal consists of possibly multiple files?
UK_T008:
4.2.1, second sentence and 5.1.2, first sentence
What is the reason for the phrase persistent SEDRIS transmittal and one or more persistent files? Doesnt the technology specified in clause 5 in particular apply, irrespective of whether the files or transmittals are persistent? Would not even Clause 4 apply whether the files were persistent or not?
(Note that standard references define a file as a collection of data with no implication as to its persistence.)
UK_T009:
4.3, second paragraph, second sentence
The quotes on external elements should be removed, since they are not necessary. The term external element can be used informally here, before it is formally defined. However a forward reference to its definition would be appropriate.
5 Transmittal structure
UK_T010:
5.1.3
The following statements are not technically correct:
a. Upper-case strings are terminals.
b. Lower-case strings are non-terminals.
Clearly, for example, not all Upper-case strings are terminals. It is the other way around. A terminal symbol is denoted by an upper case string enclosed in angle brackets (< >).
Also, not all non-terminals are lower-case strings. One example is .
UK_T011:
5.2.1 last line
This Part 2 comment relates to what is probably an issue with Part 3. The last line of this subclause states An encoding complying with the abstract transmittal format provides a specification of these terminal symbols that can be optimized for particular purposes.
Part 3, 4.1.1 clearly states:
4.1.1 Introduction
The abstract transmittal format is the standard interchange mechanism for transmittals as defined in HYPERLINK "C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\SEDRIS Part 3 FCD\Clause2--References.html" \l "I18023_2" part 2 of ISO/IEC 18023. The abstract transmittal format is realized by specifying an encoding that maps the elements of the abstract transmittal format into specific elements in one or more files.
Part 3 has been searched for several of the terminal symbols in 5.2.1 and neither their abstract syntax nor their encodings could be found as specified in Part 3. Therefore, Part 3 cannot be a compliant encoding of Part 2.
UK_T012:
5.2.1 and 5.2.8
It would be better to place requirements levied on encodings into one place rather than scattering them about in Clause 5.
UK_T013:
5.2.2
This subclause does not explain the grammar of . As 5.2.1 states, that is up to the encoding to specify. What this clause does is give an alternative symbol for . The text and title should be fixed to correctly indicate what is done.
If ENCODING ELEMENT remains in the title, it should be instead.
UK_T014:
5.2.3
The introductory text says The production rule for... but then will sometimes present two productions.
UK_T015:
5.2.8 first production
In the first production there are two improper parenthetical references that are not correct BNF. One is:
(included for DRM_Imageobjects only)
The number of occurrences of this element can be specified in a sentence that further constrains the BNF (since it is not easily specified in a context-free grammar). Such a sentence might be:
The number of occurrences of the element shall be exactly 1 if the is DRM_Image and shall be 0 otherwise.
The above ignores the fine point that the grammar in 5.2.1 states that is a terminal not further specified in part 2, but specified in any encoding. It cannot, in fact, be a terminal if its values determine aspects of Part 2 such as the presence or absence of elements. This defect should also be corrected.
UK_T016:
5.2.8, second paragraph, first sentence
The tables in 6.3 DRM classes of HYPERLINK "C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\SEDRIS Part 2 FCD\Clause2--References.html" \l "I18023_1" Part 1 of ISO/IEC 18023 specify the allowable information within each DRM object. has a few problems.
First, "allowable information" is too imprecise to be a testable requirement. See UK T022 for a discussion of how specifications from Part 1 can be more precisely related to specifications in Part 2. What is specified in Part 1 reflects precisely on the syntax in this part, because it further constrains both the number of occurrences of certain elements as well as the contents and meaning or terminals at least (a matter for the encoding to deal with, not Part 2). This can be easily and precisely specified.
Next, it should be not DRM object.
UK_T017:
5.2.8, list following the second paragraph
In this list:
(for DRM_Image) (for DRM_Data_Table)
the encoding must specify both of the last items, irrespective of their limited usage.
Therefore, we recommend removing both parenthetical phrases.
UK_T018:
5.2.8, third paragraph
The statement Each terminal... cannot be correct, because 5.2.1 states that is itself a single terminal symbol. This is in fact a requirement on how an encoding must itself expand this terminal in Part 2 into a non-terminal in its own grammar.
A similar comment also applies to , , and in the 4th, 5th, and 6th paragraphs.
UK_T019:
5.2.8, last paragraph
The phrase placement and order is too informal and would be improved if replaced by abstract syntax. Also the term this information in this sentence is ambiguous. Does it apply to each of the above 4 terminals?
6 Conformance
UK_T020:
6 throughout
Items that are defined should be presented in italics. Example functionally conforms in 6.2.2.
UK_T021:
6.2.1
The text says:
An encoded transmittal may be either functionally conforming or fully conforming to this part of ISO/IEC 18023.
In fact, it may also be non-conforming. The sentence should be corrected to be an introduction to what is specified in this clause.
UK_T022:
6.2.2
The language is too loose and informal. For example, (a) says:
All object instances contained therein match the functionality of the corresponding DRM classes of HYPERLINK "C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\SEDRIS Part 2 FCD\Clause2--References.html" \l "I18023_1" part 1 of ISO/IEC 18023.
First, neither Clause 4 nor Clause 5 contains the term object instance. Clause 5 does specify a in 5.2.8 and it says A DRM object represents an instance of a DRM class.. Perhaps is what was intended here instead of object instances. Looking further, it is noted that 5.2.8 has a grammar element associated with each . Perhaps this is what was intended, rather than corresponding DRM class...
Next, the requirement match the functionality of the corresponding DRM classes is not well defined or testable. Perhaps what is intended is a more precise statement that relates elements of the grammar in 5.2.8 to elements of the specification in Clause 6 of SEDRIS Part 1 of the DRM class specified in . It is hard to envision a transmittal format as having functionality because only active objects have functionality, but there are syntactic and semantic relationships among the represented and coded elements that can match aspects of the definition of DRM classes in Part 1.
A precise enough statement to be unambiguous and testable would take the abstract syntax elements of 6.2.2:
[and their sub-syntax that follows]
and relate them to the entries in the Property column of a table defining a DRM class. One requirement would address the containing the same fields as the Field elements property. Others would address how the items in the match the two Component of... properties.
UK_T023:
6.2.2 c.
In begins with BEGIN TRANSMITTAL ROOT FILE, there should be brackets used in .
See also UK G001.
UK_T024:
6.3 b.
Item (b) does not make sense:
An encoding that functionally conforms to this part of ISO/IEC 18023 shall:
...
only produce functionally conforming encoded transmittals.
How can an encoding produce functionally conforming encoded transmittals?
UK_T025:
6.3, last sentence
Since it is known that Part 3 specifies such an encoding, why not explicitly state the part number here?
Annex A Guidelines for encodings
UK_T026:
A.3
The informative text in A.3 is compared with the normative text in 4.4:
A.3 Compression
An encoding may specify how compression techniques apply. All compression should ensure that the initial uncompressed data is recreated after decompression. Thus, only lossless compression should be supported (see HYPERLINK "C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\SEDRIS Part 2 FCD\Clause4--Concepts.html" \l "Compression" 4.4 Compression).
Compression may be applied in many different ways. The entire transmittal may be compressed using external compression techniques, subset of data within a transmittal may be defined for compression purposes, and/or individual within the transmittal may be individually compressed.
4.4 Compression
An encoding may support compression for individual elements within the encoding, groups of elements within the encoding, and/or the entire transmittal. If an encoding allows compression, only loss-less compression techniques shall be used.
Because 4.4 normatively states that only loss-less compression techniques shall be used, that topic should not be addressed again in A.3. In fact, the should of A.3 might be mistaken by a careless reader as permission to use lossy compression.
Further, the second paragraph of A.3 is little different from the normative first sentence of 4.4.
It is suggested that the removal of all of A.3 be considered, because it adds no additional value and may confuse implementers.
Editorial
5 Transmittal structure
UK_E001:
Table 5.2
In this table the symbol + plus does not look raised and the symbol is so small that it is hard to read. This also applies later to some productions. All of these special raised symbols should be about the same size and presented in about the same location.
UK_E002:
5.2.8, second paragraph
Callouts to references should be checked here and throughout for proper format. For example:
The tables in 6.3 DRM classes of HYPERLINK "C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\SEDRIS Part 2 FCD\Clause2--References.html" \l "I18023_1" Part 1 of ISO/IEC 18023....
should be:
The tables in 6.3 of HYPERLINK "C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\SEDRIS Part 2 FCD\Clause2--References.html" \l "I18023_1" Part 1 of ISO/IEC 18023....
6 Conformance
UK_E003:
6.2.2
In (c), the example is in improper ISO style.
ISO ITTF COMMENTS
Cover pageedTitle is missing.Please add.GeneraledThere should be no logos other than ISO and IEC.Please remove the Sedris logos.ForewordedIncorrect Foreword is used.Please use the correct Foreword, available from the ISO/IEC template.2Normative referencesedThe only reference listed is at Committee Draft stage.Please remove until it reaches DIS stage.
SEDRIS Organization Comments
On
SEDRIS functional specification, Part 2
ISO/IEC Final Committee Draft 18023-2
Submitted: 15 July 2004
General Comments
SEDRIS_G001: Throughout
The phrase "SEDRIS transmittal" should be replaced with "transmittal". The same applies to plural versions. This includes figures and sub-clause titles. It is obvious that this specification deals with SEDRIS transmittals, so there is no need to include the word SEDRIS each time.
SEDRIS_G002: Throughout
References to sub-clauses in Part 1 should be updated to match the correct sub-clause numbers in Part 1.
Technical Comments
Introduction
SEDRIS_T001: First sentence in Purpose
Drop "semantics and".
SEDRIS_T002: Last sentence of Purpose
Replace "interpret" with "access".
Clause 3
SEDRIS_T003: 3.3 transmittal
Remove this definition, since it is already defined in Part 1.
SEDRIS_T004: Throughout
Remove the hyperlinks to "transmittal", since "3.3 transmittal" will be removed.
Clause 4
SEDRIS_T005: Throughout
Concept of mesh face table data needs to be added to Clause 4, and reflected in text and in Figure 4.1.
SEDRIS_T006: 4.2.2 SEDRIS transmittal file, 2nd sentence
Change "object files" to "content files". It is the more accurate phrase (see SEDRIS_T008).
SEDRIS_T007: 4.2.2 SEDRIS transmittal file, last sentence
Change "transmittal is opened" to "transmittal is processed". The word "opened" implies access through an API, which may not be the case.
SEDRIS_T008: 4.2.2 SEDRIS transmittal file
Add the following sentences to end of 4.2.2:
"The root file may contain DRM object data. Content files may contain object data, image data, and/or data table data. Transmittals that contain image data or data table data shall use content files."
SEDRIS_T009: 4.2.3 Role, first sentence
Drop the phrase "including that specified in Part 3 of ISO/IEC 18023".
SEDRIS_T010: 4.2.3 Role
Merge 4.2.3 into 4.2.1 as the last paragraph of 4.2.1. It is adequate to cover this in 4.2.1.
SEDRIS_T011: 4.2.3 Role, last sentence
Remove the phrase "in one or more files" from the last sentence. Since 4.2.3 should become part of 4.2.1, this phrase is a repeat and not needed.
SEDRIS_T012: 4.3 Architecture, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence
Change the phrase "format specific additional" to "additional format-specific"
SEDRIS_T013: 4.3 Architecture, 2nd paragraph, penultimate sentence
This sentence (starting with "External elements") should be turned into two "EXAMPLEs".
SEDRIS_T014: 4.3 Architecture, 3rd paragraph, first sentence
Change "depicts the abstract form of an encoded" to "depicts the abstract form of a multi-file encoded".
SEDRIS_T015: 4.3 Architecture, Figure 4.1
Change the figure to the following. This following figure shows the correct relationships and terms.
Clause 5
SEDRIS_T016: Throughout
Use of encoding element (*) appears redundant or at least inconsistent in several production rules. Review and correctly use the *.
For example, in 5.2.4 an * ends the declaration, yet in an * already appears right after the use of .
SEDRIS_T017: Throughout
Brackets outside the declarations should be used consistently. Correct these.
For example in declaration of there are extra outside brackets that are not necessary, and should be removed.
SEDRIS_T018: Throughout
Wherever the term "object" is used in the terminals or declarations, it should be "DRM object". This affects such items as ,
,
SEDRIS_T019: 5.1.3 Notational conventions, item c.
Change "productions" to "production rules". This is the term used throughout Clause 5.
SEDRIS_T020: 5.1.3 Notational conventions, Table 5.2
Since there are no occurrences of <...>n the table entry for the metasymbol <...>n should be removed.
SEDRIS_T021: 5.2, Throughout
Add constructs for Mesh Face Table Data concept in a manner analogous to . It is missing.
SEDRIS_T022: 5.2.1 Terminals
The following terminals are missing from the list and need to be added:
SEDRIS_T023: 5.2.1 Terminals
The following terminals should be removed because they are redundant:
SEDRIS_T024: 5.2.1 Terminals
Alphabetize the terminal list.
SEDRIS_T025: 5.2.1 Terminals
Add a new terminal to the list to include the unique transmittal ID capability supported in Part 1.
SEDRIS_T026: 5.2.2 ENCODING ELEMENT grammar, title and first sentence
Need brackets around in the title.
SEDRIS_T027: 5.2.4, in declaration of