7.11 (File specifications): Subclause organization improvement

[stechio]

IMHO, subclause 7.11 (File specifications) is not well-organized: subclause 7.11.2.2 (Absolute and relative file specifications) describes file specifications belonging to any file system (both platform-independent file names and URLs), yet it is under 7.11.2 (File specification strings), which is specific to platform-independent file names. Furthermore, while File specification strings (7.11.2) are described before File specification dictionaries (7.11.3), URL specifications (7.11.5) are described after them, despite BOTH specification types are referenced within File specification dictionaries (7.11.3).

PROPOSAL

Therefore, with the same intent of a similar proposal (#263), I suggest to reorganize subclause 7.11 this way:

7.11, "File specifications" 7.11.1, "General": same as current 7.11.1 (General) 7.11.2, "File specification types" 7.11.2.1, "File specification strings": contents of current 7.11.2.1 (General) 7.11.2.2, "URL specifications": contents of current 7.11.5 (URL specifications) 7.11.3, "File specification syntax": contents of current 7.11.2.2 (Absolute and relative file specifications) 7.11.4, "File specification dictionaries": contents of current 7.11.3 (File specification dictionaries) 7.11.5, "Embedded file streams": contents of current 7.11.4 (Embedded file streams) 7.11.6, "Collection items": contents of current 7.11.6 (Collection items)

---

NOTE: For convenience, original SUB-ISSUE 1 (File specification dictionaries (7.11.3) - Table 43 (Entries in a file specification dictionary)) has been moved to https://github.com/pdf-association/pdf-issues/issues/433. Consequently, this issue now covers only original SUB-ISSUE 2 (File specifications (7.11) - Subclause organization improvement).

[petervwyatt]

I'd like to split this into 2 separate issues:

• Sub-issue 1 which I think can be addressed by one or more errata level fixes
• Sub-issue 2 is clearly a future enhancement as it goes well beyond what we want to do (and can do) with bandaid errata patches

@stechio - if it's OK by you, can you please copy sub-issue 1 into a new issue (leaving this issue for sub-issue 2)? I can then try to progress sub-issue 1...

[stechio]

@petervwyatt I rearranged the sub-issues according to your request — in case something is still missing, please let me know.

[petervwyatt]

Thanks. Because this is major spec surgery beyond the scope of errata I have parked this issue (for now).