<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Colin,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">TGFT RID #20 – Bold or not Bold? – recommends that there be a consistency with respect to bolding of the names of XML Schema type, element, and attribute names. At the Spring Workshop the WG decided to consistently bold these items, and
I took the action to do so. The attached version of the Red Book includes such changes in section 4 and Annex F.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please note that these names were originally all bolded in the working drafts of theses sections of the TGFT – the “unbolding” of most of them appears to have occurred somewhere in the process of having the Red Book prepared by the Secretariat.
I recommend that when the Blue Book is submitted to the Secretariat it be accompanied by an instruction to leave the bolding as-is section 4 and annex F. In this same vein, I have included in the attached draft a new proposed section 1.6.3 (CONVENTIONS) which
reads “The names of XML Schema data types, elements, and attributes appear in <b>
bold</b> text.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I also found and corrected a few minor typos. All changes were made with Track Changes on and flagged with comment balloons.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Finally, I also flagged (with a comment balloon) one of the paragraphs that states that the
<b><span style="color:black">TgftXfduExtensionParameters.xsd</span></b><span style="color:black"> file contains the required</span>
<b>TgftXfduExtensionType</b> and <b>TgftContentUnitExtensionType</b>, but nowhere is it stated where this
<b><span style="color:black">TgftXfduExtensionParameters.xsd</span></b><span style="color:black">
</span>file can be found. This problem is more extensively described in the email “TGFT RIDs 28 and 41”, which I sent to you on Monday, 4 May.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">John<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>