Those two lines seem to provide, under the disguise of a contraint, the true formal definition of what an understood namespace is meant to be in the text. They show that the notion of understood workspace is to be defined for each conformant consumer, and that the way a consumer defines which namespaces it understands is by not raising any kind of ‘non-understood’ error on MustUnderstand attributes that reference the said namespaces. Contrast this with the fuzzy, unacceptable way understood namespaces are defined page 4, line 1. The latter draws upon ill-undefined, lax terms like ‘recognize’, whereas the former, while still lacking the proper behavioral model several comments ask for, makes a clear formal, measurable and unambiguous statement of what a consumer should do when presented given contents.

Rework the formal definition of understood namespaces from the information given here as a constraint. (Would start by defining non-understood namespaces, then define understood namespaces by difference with the set of currently available namespaces.) Leverage the resulting definition consistently throughout the OOXML text.

page 18, line 22 Part 5, Section 9.1.4 MustUnderstand Attribute

te

Proposed Disposition of DIS 29500 Comment FR-0574 (Modified: 2008-01-02) Agreed; the definition of the term “recognize” has been improved as a result of the response to comment FR-0538. This line is one of many formal constraints placed on an understood namespace. It is the role of §3, “Definitions”, to specify the terminology in use in this Part, and the role of the subsequent parts to formalize the requirements and describe conformance behaviour. We believe that, with the above-cited revision, this comment has been addressed.