Alternative Format Import Part (RTF) The RTF support example in 11.3.1 has in a number of discussions been seen as a normative part of the specification although it is stated relatively clear that is an example and that it is a note; hence not normative. Remove the references in line 3 towards specific application formats. This would allow any implementer to decide, which “import-format” they would like to provide additional support from.

Proposed Disposition of DIS 29500 Comment DK-0151 (Modified: 2007-11-26) Agreed; these references are inappropriate; the following changes will be made in Part 1, §11.3.1: Page 28, Line 1, “Content Type” row Content Type: Any content, support for which is application-defined. [Note: Some examples of formats which might be supported include: Text = application/txt RTF = application/rtf HTML = application/html XML = application/xml end note] Page 28, lines 3-5 An alternative format import part allows content specified in an application-defined alternate format (HTML, MHTML, RTF, earlier versions of WordprocessingML, or plain text) to be embedded directly in a WordprocessingML document in order to allow that content to be migrated to the WordprocessingML format. Page 28, lines 15-17 A WordprocessingML consumer shall who understands the format of an instance of this part should treat the its contents of such legacy text files as if they were formatted using equivalent WordprocessingML, and if that consumer is also a WordprocessingML producer, it shall emit the legacy text contents of the part in WordprocessingML format. Similar Comments: CL-0040 , DE-0006 , DE-0150 , DK-0101 , DK-0156 , FR-0014 , GB-0041 , KE-0004 , MT-0005 , PH-0006 , US- 0033