There is no explicit indication given as to whether this annex is informative or normative. See ISO Directives, Part 2, section 5.2.6.
Proposed change: Clarify the status of this annex.
ANNEX E [p5207, OfficeOpenXML-DrawingMLGeometries.zip]
ge
Proposed Disposition of DIS 29500 Comment GB-0603 (Modified: 2007-12-05) Agreed; in keeping with the style used in Parts 1 and 2, a new normative clause, “General Description”, will be added in front of Part 4 §1, as follows: “ The following form the normative part of this Markup Language Reference specification: Introduction Clauses 28 Annex A Annex D The following form the informative part of this Markup Language Reference specification: Clause 1 Annex BC Annex EF All notes All examples Except for whole clauses or annexes that are identified as being informative, informative text that is contained within normative text is indicated in the following ways: 1. [Example: code fragment, possibly with some narrative … end example] 2. [Note: narrative … end note] 3. [Rationale: narrative … end rationale] 4. [Guidance: narrative … end guidance] ” In addition to the declarations in the “General Description”, each annex that is informative, also contains the following text at the beginning of the annex: This clause is informative. These two pieces of information clearly state the normative/informative status of each annex. We acknowledge that the ISO Directives, Part 2, §5.2.6, indicate a different way of providing this notation. Note, however, that the JTC 1 Directives, §13.9, state, “… the Project Editor shall prepare the amended DIS (or DAM) … For its initial publication, the document is not required to be in ISO/IEC format, but can be published in the format of the submitting organization.” And §13.14 states, “Subsequent revisions shall be in the format prescribed by the ISO/IEC Directives Part 2.” So some formatting changes, like the one described in this comment, will be made in the next revision. Similar Comments: FR-0576 , FR-0577 , FR-0578 , FR-0579 , FR-0582 , FR-0583 , FR-0584 , FR-0585 , GB-0597 , GB-0599 , GB-0601 , KE-0001 , US-0013 , US-0014 , US-0015 , US-0016 , VE-0003
The same point goes for several similar appendices. The question only needs answering once so the others will be dupes of this even if they refer to a different zip.
tagging as just fix it. I don’t know how much the informative/normative distinction matters so there might be an issue of substance depending on the outcome of the clarification.