Subject: FW: Implementers Guide Rev2b

From: "Cancio, Vivian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:33:58 -0700

Attached is new version including revision per comments from Richard Coles.
STILL ...
> 
> I would like to eliminate the unnecessary precautions, etc. 
> in Section 5 - Implementations Issues Specific to the File 
> Format. So please review as recommend which should be deleted 
> and which should stay.
> 

Thanks,
Vivian

-----Original Message-----
From: COLES, RICHARD J. (JSC-EV) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 9:15 AM
To: 'Cancio, Vivian'
Subject: RE: Implementers Guide

Vivian, et al:

Here are the changes I mentioned in a previous e-mail.

Page 2, Section 1.1, Introduction:
notes "a)" and "b)" are tabbed, c thru e are not.

Page 2, Section 2, Terminology:
Inconsistent use of capitals in "Simple Mode" and "Extended Mode",
specifically, the word "using" is capitalized in the first but not the
second.

Page 3, Section 3.2.1, Multipart/alternative and Storage Capacity:
I recommend removing the parentheses around the phrase "high-fidelity but"

Page 4, Section 4.2, Correlation of MDN with original message:
The reproduced paragraph from RFC 2298 contains a footnote reference, but
with a "?" and not a number.

Page 5; Section 4.4.1.4, "Body" of MDN:
Remove the comma in the first line, after "MDN request".  It separates
subject from verb.
	<<personal note - I am already seeing e-mail notifications 
	    of similar text to that recommended.  I like it very much>>

Page 9, Section 4.4.3, heading "a) Success case":
Quoting-- "It does not guarantee that the receiver displays, print or save
the attached TIFF-FX file"
Shouldn't it be "displays, printS or saveS", for agreement? (capital-S used
only for emphasis)

ditto for page 10, "b) Failure case" the phrase "receives an MDNs" - "an" is
singular, but "MDNs" implies plural.  The word "receives" also indicates
that "MDNs" should be "MDN".
	same paragraph, next sentence- Quoting "Currently there is not
mechanism" -- should that be "not A mechanism"? (cap-A only for emphasis)

ditto for the same page, 4.4.3.1 Examples - 2 disagreements in the same
sentence.  Quoting "If examples conflicts with the MDN definition[7], the
example are wrong."

Page 12, Section 5.2 (which, BTW, is split with one line of text at the
bottom of page 11, followed by the page 12 header, then the rest of the
sentence - makes it hard to follow on the screen, but in print will be
understandable - still, recommend pushing 5.2 down into page 12).  top of
page 12, Quoting "The following compiled list of TIFF/RFC 2301 [4] errors
where encountered during  interoperability testing...".
Should that be "...errors WERE encountered..."??

Page 12, Section 5.2.1, Typical Reader Errors in Headers, heading "a)":
Quoting: "...even when the specifications permits encoding in..." another
disagreement in subject/predicate.  Recommend "...specifications PERMIT..."
since "specifications" is usually a plural word.
	Same paragraph, "Profile S" is hyphenated in one place & not the
other. Which way is it supposed to be?

Also on Page 12, Section 5.2.1, the formatting of a & b is not the same as c
thru e.

Page 12, 5.2.2 heading "e)":  there is a stray ")" at the end of the
sentence.

Page 13, Section 5.2.3, heading "c)", right (closing) parenthesis appears to
be missing.  Maybe it's the stray from the previous listing  :-)

Page 14, 5.2.6 heading "b)":  reference to TIFF [quoting] "...profile M...".
Should that be capitalized and/or hyphenated (like Profile-M), per previous
question (re: Profile-S)?

Page 14, Block 10, References:
There is one at the bottom of the page (Masinter), and the rest are on 15.
Should that be pushed down to the next page?  Some of the earlier pages had
a lot of whitespace which looked intentional.  Can't this be done also?

ditto Page 15, Section 11, Authors' addresses (split across 2 pages)

_ _ _

General:

In most locations, references to RFC 2298 have footnote 7, but in one place
it was a 9.  I noticed from the attachments that 2298 is #9 and that #7 is
RFC 1894.

All of the above is respectfully submitted to the authors.  I am merely
trying to help insure an accurate document.  I cannot comment on the other
technologies, as I do not know enough about them.

Tnx/
Richard Coles
Lockheed Martin, at
NASA/Johnson Space Center/Houston

---

From: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:00:38 -0700 (PDT)

> Format. So please review as recommend which should be deleted 

Are you looking for prettier language saying the same thing, or
do you think the problems have gone away, or do you think the
problems aren't as significant as the text reads?

-d