<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=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Back to the WG 4 list. Murata-san, Rex, Chris and I discussed these items on the recent teleconference and in subsequent misc e-mails. I’d like to get the results
of all the public and private e-mails back to one place with a short list. Please look through the below for the private discussion that branched off the public e-mail from Rex. The summary of the items are in my mail
</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Sent:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Thursday, August 6, 2015 7:21 PM</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">.
A few are resolved with editorial corrections. The three that appear to remain are</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">: ST_OnOff (missing ST prose), ST_PitchFamily (DR 09-0055 vs. 09-0037), ST_Hint (missing
enum value). I will start a separate mail thread on each because each is detailed and trying to deal with them all in a scattered fashion here will be confusing. For simplicity, I’ll use the preceding ST names as the subjects.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">John</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> John Haug
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 13, 2015 5:19 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'MURATA Makoto' <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Rex Jaeschke <rex@rexjaeschke.com>; Chris Rae <chrisrae@exchange.microsoft.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: An Analysis of the Issues Found during Review of the Consolidated Reprint Draft, and the Question of Producing another (small, quick) COR<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Hearing no other comments, it seems the short list of three items (my previous mail just below) is what actually remains for technical discussion. Any objections
to now sharing the results of our research to the SC 34 mailing list? I’d like to forward this mail thread, then start a separate e-mail for each of the three topics to provide a separate place to discuss each. This and the previous general COR problems
threads are long and complicated enough; they served their purpose to identify the problems, adderss the easy ones and identify what remains. I have some analysis related to the first item (ST_OnOff) ready to go.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
</span><a href="mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">eb2mmrt@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> [</span><a href="mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>MURATA Makoto<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:13 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> John Haug <</span><a href="mailto:johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Rex Jaeschke <</span><a href="mailto:rex@rexjaeschke.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">rex@rexjaeschke.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>; Chris Rae <</span><a href="mailto:chrisrae@exchange.microsoft.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">chrisrae@exchange.microsoft.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>;
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <</span><a href="mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: An Analysis of the Issues Found during Review of the Consolidated Reprint Draft, and the Question of Producing another (small, quick) COR<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">My mistake. I appear to have used a wrong version of Part 1.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am now checking Part 4 by first computing diffs between strict <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">schemas and transitional schemas and then comparing the result and Part 4.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Makoto<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2015-08-12 7:49 GMT+09:00 John Haug <<a href="mailto:johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com" target="_blank">johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">18.18.69 ST_SheetViewType does exist in prose in 29500-1:2012 and the changes in DR 12-0010 (see WG
4 N 0251) are in Rex’s Cor with DR traceback (though they’re tagged as DR 12-0009, which is the first of the sequential set of 10 terminology DRs filed by the UK) in WG 4 N 0299. Was there an error in your comparison?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">So I think we still have three items from the list below: ST_OnOff1 (ST prose missing or intentional),
ST_PitchFamily (DR 09-0055 vs. 09-0037), ST_Hint (missing enum value). Is that correct?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
</span><a href="mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">eb2mmrt@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> [mailto:</span><a href="mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">eb2mmrt@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>MURATA Makoto<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 8, 2015 5:02 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Rex Jaeschke <</span><a href="mailto:rex@rexjaeschke.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">rex@rexjaeschke.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">><br>
<b>Cc:</b> John Haug <</span><a href="mailto:johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>;
Chris Rae <</span><a href="mailto:chrisrae@exchange.microsoft.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">chrisrae@exchange.microsoft.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>;
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <</span><a href="mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: An Analysis of the Issues Found during Review of the Consolidated Reprint Draft, and the Question of Producing another (small, quick) COR</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I created a list of all simple types in Part 1 XSD schemas and that of all in 29500-1.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Attached please find the difference.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">ST_SheetViewType exists only in sml,xsd. The other difference <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">is ST_PitchFamily, which has been discussed. All other simple types <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">in XSD schemas are covered by prose, and vice versa.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I think that we need a subclause when there is no such <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">for some simple type.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Makoto<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">2015-08-09 6:27 GMT+09:00 Rex Jaeschke <<a href="mailto:rex@rexjaeschke.com" target="_blank">rex@rexjaeschke.com</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">See my responses inline, Rex</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> John Haug [mailto:</span><a href="mailto:johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 6, 2015 7:21 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Rex Jaeschke (</span><a href="mailto:rex@RexJaeschke.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">rex@RexJaeschke.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">) <</span><a href="mailto:rex@RexJaeschke.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">rex@RexJaeschke.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>;
MURATA, Makoto (</span><a href="mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">) <</span><a href="mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>;
Chris Rae <</span><a href="mailto:chrisrae@exchange.microsoft.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">chrisrae@exchange.microsoft.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: An Analysis of the Issues Found during Review of the Consolidated Reprint Draft, and the Question of Producing another (small, quick) COR</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Apologies for the delayed reply to this and the other related e-mails. I went through all the mail
I had about remaining problems with DRs in the COR and this is what I have found. I think there are two DRs partially or fully reflected in the COR that create problems and need to be studied again. [Regarding one of those issues (DRs 09-0040/09-0037) and
the recent mail among Rex, Murata-san and I (“A second COR for 29500-1 and the type ST_PitchFamily in DML”), I haven’t dug into Murata-san’s thought that DR 09-0037 should have introduced a new complex type, since the whole issue needs to be looked at again.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Other (from Murata-san’s mail “ST_OnOff1 in shared-commonSimpleTypes.xsd”):</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">ST_OnOff1 (Part 4)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">MM mail 2015-07-04: in schema but missing from prose? (from Amd.1?)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">29500-4:2012: defined in schema, neither ST_OnOff1 (“on”, “off”) nor ST_OnOff (union of Boolean & ST_OnOff1) referenced in prose</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:73.5pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"">o</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">14.5.2 legacy@legacy uses ST_OnOff from Part 1 22.9.2.7; no other uses</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">No changes noted in 29500-4-2012-Cor-1-2015 (N 0300)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">** Does this even need to be added to prose? It’s such a trivial ST, I think not; we don’t always add prose for STs, do we?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Rex></span>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM seemed to simply point out this one ST that did not have prose. I didn’t take that as a suggestion that we go back and add a subclause for that.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Rex Category 2:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">ST_PitchFamily (DR 09-0055, 09-0037)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">DR 09-0055: CT_TextFont@pitchFamily changed to be of new type ST_PitchFamily (missing in DCOR)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">DR 09-0037 already removed CT_TextFont@charset/panose/pitchFamily</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings">à</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Proposed: back out DR 09-0055, re-open it, look at it from scratch</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">** Why was 09-0037 resolved as it was? ("Reviewed Shawn’s email of 2010-03-18. We chose Choice 2, “Remove the attributes from the standard”." The e-mail is the same as in the DR log from
2009-06-17.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Rex></span>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Yes it looks like we need to reconsider these, and as MM suggested in his mail, “Re: A second COR for 29500-1 and the type ST_PitchFamily in DML”, on 2015-07-30, we NOT include this
in the 2<sup>nd</sup> COR, but rather take our time and fix it next time around. I suggest making a new DR that points to these two.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Style Hierarchy (DR 12-0005, 12-0025)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings">à</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Rex to paste in correct tables</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> Rex></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<span style="color:#1F497D">Yes</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Rex Category 3:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">ST_Hint (DR 09-0040)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">DR removed “cs” value</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings">à</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Murata-san to remove "cs" from schemas</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">** Only the value “default” remains; where did “eastAsia” get removed? DR 09-0040 adds lots of text referring to “cs” and “eastAsia” values of the hint attribute for some CTs, which is
of type ST_Hint. DR 09-0040 is therefore internally inconsistent and should not be applied as is. I haven’t yet rediscovered why ST_Hint had items removed.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Rex></span>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I just checked MM’s mail, “Leftover from DR 09-0040” of 2015-08-02, and his proposed schema fix only removes cs; eastAsia is still there.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">However, on close inspection, the way the Enumeration Value table is written in the COR (see entry
#81) is that this is the complete table. As eastAsian was never intended to be removed, I should have shown an empty row after the default row, containing …, indicating that the remainder of the table stays as is. And even though the COR didn’t contain that
…, when I applied the COR to 2012, I did NOT remove eastAsian, ‘cos there was no delete (strike-through in red) instruction in the COR to do so.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Regarding, “DR 09-0040 adds lots of text referring to “cs” and “eastAsia” values of the hint attribute
for some CTs, which is of type ST_Hint. DR 09-0040 is therefore internally inconsistent and should not be applied as is”, I see there is a cs element APART from the cs enumeration value in ST_Hint. (I also see that eastAsia is also an attribute name as well
as an enum value.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">numFmt (DR 14-0006, DR 14-0016)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Didn’t we discuss this in London, or was it something else? I recall deciding to move the note to the top of all the tables to avoid the concern that it seems to imply only values up to
49 are allowed, by being just below the first table listing IDs up to 49.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Rex></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<span style="color:#1F497D">Yes, we resolved this in London and I have fixed it accordingly by moving the note to the top and referring to the tables (plural) below, not just the one ending in 49.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Rex Jaeschke [</span><a href="mailto:rex@RexJaeschke.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:rex@RexJaeschke.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 22, 2015 1:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> SC 34 WG4 <</span><a href="mailto:e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">><br>
<b>Subject:</b> An Analysis of the Issues Found during Review of the Consolidated Reprint Draft, and the Question of Producing another (small, quick) COR</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">In mail posted on 2015-07-19, with the subject, “Another DCOR immediately?”, Murata-san raised the
question of whether we wanted to produce another COR to sweep up known problems before continuing with the consolidated reprint of 29500.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Here’s my analysis of the situation.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I see three categories of issues being raised:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">1.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Things in the CORs that were voted on and accepted, but which I failed to incorporate correctly into in the draft consolidated reprint. [editorial]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">2.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Edits in the DR log that appear to have been accepted by WG4, but did not make it into the corresponding COR, so were not voted on. [substantive]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">3.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Shortcomings in the resolution of a DR, which will require further deliberation, and subsequent COR processing. [substantive]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I have addressed all the Category 1 issues known to me as of right now. Here then are the remaining
issues that I have confirmed:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Category 2 Issues:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">a.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">DR 09-0055 (which was back in COR2 [NOT the most recent COR], and incorporated in 29500:2013), which involved ST_PitchFamily, was resolved incompletely. As discussed in recent
mails, “none of the edits proposed in DR 09-0055 after the heading “2011-06-03 Chris Rae:” and before the heading “2011-06-20/22 Berlin Meeting:” were incorporated into COR2, so were not integrated into the resulting new standard edition.”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">b.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">DRs 12-0005 and DR 12-0025 both impact the table in §17.7.2, “Style Hierarchy”. It appears that the row labelled “Numbering” was somehow lost when these two sets of edits were
merged.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Category 3 Issues:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">a.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">As part of DR 09-0040, we decided to disallow "cs" as a value of ST_Hint. However, we forgot to change the schemas.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">b.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">DR 14-0006 (§18.8.30, “numFmt (Number Format)”: The added comment appears to discourage the use of values beyond 50. But values up to 81 are defined in this subclause (18.8.31).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">There might be others; I recently said I couldn’t locate several that were reported, so they might
yet need work.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Regarding the idea of cleaning up these things by having a second COR and then created the consolidated
reprint, here are some things to consider:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">We can do a second COR</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">We should make such a decision at the Beijing face-to-face meeting (when more members will attend) rather than the preceding teleconference.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">So far, all the known issues needing to be balloted once resolved are in Part 1. However, as Part 4 points to Part 1, delaying publication of Part 1 would also delay that for
Part 4.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Re the timeline for a new COR, if we authorized a new COR at the Beijing meeting, I’d produce it and have WG4 check it, then we’d have a 60-day SC 34-only ballot. Then I’d
integrate that into the base spec and produce a new draft 29500-1 for proofing by WG4 (and TC45). Then I’d submit it to ISO for publication sometime in 2016, and by Ecma in June 2016.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Rex</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><br>
<br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><br>
Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake<br>
<br>
Makoto<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake<br>
<br>
Makoto<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>