An informal draft change-tracked text of IS 26300 + COR1, COR2 and AMD1, with list of possible new issues encountered

Sat Dec 8 00:39:32 CET 2012

Dear members of WG 6

I have now prepared a complete draft of a faux change-tracked version of IS
26300 with COR1, COR2 and AMD1 all applied. See attached PDF.

While preparing this draft I discovered just one major issue and one minor
issue. The major issue concerns a correction that was made by COR1 then
partially, but not completely, reversed by AMD1. This relates to Clause
15.31.3, fourth paragraph and schema fragment. COR1 changed the name of an
attribute in the fourth paragraph from 'chart:interval-minor-division' to
'chart:interval-minor', for consistency with the schema fragment. AMD1
changed the name in the schema fragment from 'chart:interval-minor' to
'chart:interval-minor-division' to align with ODF v1.1, but failed to
reverse the change made by COR1. This will have to be rectified by a new
COR.

The minor issue is a wrong font in the final paragraph of new Appendix F,
where an attribute name should be in monospaced font.

I shall be most grateful for any cross-checking that experts can do to
ensure that this draft doesn't contain any transcription errors.

Francis Cave

Convenor

From: sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz] On Behalf Of
Francis Cave
Sent: 26 November 2012 23:26
To: SC 34/WG 6 mailing list
Subject: An informal draft change-tracked text of IS 26300 + COR1, COR2 and
AMD1, with list of possible new issues encountered

Dear members of WG 6

As previously announced, I attach a draft of an informal document containing
a faux change-tracked version of IS 26300 with COR1 and COR2 applied. I
propose to  continue in the same way to apply the revisions from AMD1.
Please note that this draft, in PDF format, contains comments to assist with
navigating between the changes. Deletions are in red and struck through,
insertions are in blue and underscored. Be warned that the insertions mean
that the pagination no longer corresponds with the original text.

While preparing this draft, the following issues with the revised text have
been noticed. In each case I have indicated my personal view on whether or
not we should give any priority to resolving the issue. In most cases I
don't feel that correction is a priority, but especially in the case of
Clause 9.5.3 I believe there to be a case for further correction.

1. COR1, Correction to Clause 9.3.3, page 304, line 38, final sentence:

"The xlink references that folder."

The all-lowercase term "xlink" is not consistent with the term used
elsewhere in the specification. Elsewhere the all-lowercase form is only
used as a namespace prefix in XML fragments. Both "XLink" and "[XLink]" are
used in the current text except in XML fragments, without any obvious
distinction. Probably they should all be "[XLink]", referring the reader to
the XLink reference in the bibliography in Appendix B. However, I doubt that
there is any ambiguity in the current text, so correction is not a priority.

2. 26300:2006, Clauses 9.5.3 through 9.5.6, pages 333-344

COR1 corrects a number of minor spelling and grammatical errors, but a
number of similar errors are overlooked, and one correction made by COR1
does not succeed in clarifying the meaning of the text, although a second
attempt in AMD1 to correct the same error, but in another location, is more
successful. Here are the details.

2.1 Clause 9.5.3, page 333, line 16:

"are describing" should be "describes"; "and or" should be "or"

COR 1 makes this kind of correction in several places but this one was
overlooked. I doubt that there is any ambiguity in the current text, so
correction is not a priority.

2.2 Clause 9.5.3, page 333, line 30:

"If "$" is preceding a integer value, the value is a indexing a
draw:modifiers attribute. The corresponding modifier value is used as
parameter value then."

What does this mean? It appears in three places in Clause 9.5.3, on pages
333, 334 and 336, and once in Clause 9.5.6, on page 341..

COR1 attempts to correct it in two places, on pages 336 and 341, to the
following:

"If "$" is preceding a integer value, the value is an indexing a
draw:modifiers attribute. The corresponding modifier value is used as
parameter value then. "

AMD1 attempts to correct it on page 333 to the following: 

"If "$" is preceding a integer value, the value is indexing a draw:modifiers
attribute. The corresponding modifier value is used as parameter value then.
"

Both these corrections still contain the minor grammatical error "a integer"
and the less minor grammatical errors in the final sentence. The instance on
page 334 remains uncorrected. 

I believe that AMD1 gets closest to being clear enough. In which case the
following text would probably be more correct:

"If "$" precedes an integer value, the value indexes a draw:modifiers
attribute. The corresponding modifier value is then used as the parameter
value."

In my opinion, the fact that the original unclear text occurs four times in
the specification, and has been poorly corrected in two places by COR1,
corrected slightly less poorly in one place by AMD1, and not at all in the
fourth case, means that the text is now inconsistent and this should be
corrected. Other minor grammatical errors can be corrected at the same time.

2.3 Clause 9.5.3, page 333, line 35:

"Example for a custom-shape that uses the draw:enhanced-path to describe a
pie-chart whose top right quarter segment is taken out:"

This should be:

"Example of a custom-shape that uses the draw:enhanced-path attribute to
describe a pie-chart whose top right quarter segment is taken out:"

I doubt that there is any ambiguity in the current text, so correction is
not a priority.

2.4 Clause 9.5.3, page 334, line 32:

COR1 corrects the error in line 36, but fails to correct "a ellipse" in line
32. I doubt that there is any ambiguity in the current text, so correction
is not a priority.

2.5 Clause 9.5.3, page 336, line 5:

"A example of the draw:text-areas attribute that defines two text areas, ."

This should be:

"An example of the draw:text-areas attribute that defines two text areas, ."

I doubt that there is any ambiguity in the current text, so correction is
not a priority.

2.6 Clause 9.5.3, page 336, line 25:

"A example of the draw:glue-points attribute that defines two glue points,
including modifier and

equation usage, would be: draw:glue-points="0 ?Formula1 100 $1" "

This should be:

"An example of the draw:glue-points attribute that defines two glue points,
including modifier and

equation usage, would be: draw:glue-points="0 ?Formula1 100 $1" "

I doubt that there is any ambiguity in the current text, so correction is
not a priority.

2.7 Clause 9.5.5, page 340, line 14:

COR1 corrects "A example" to "An example" at the start of the sentence, but
fails to correct the wrong font in the attribute example in the same line.
It should be:

"An example for the draw:formula attribute would be:
draw:formula="width+10-$0". If the value of the first modifier value is
"100" and the width of the svg:viewbox is "10000", then the result of the
above formula would be 10000 + 10 - 100 = 9910"

I doubt that there is any ambiguity in the current text, so correction is
not a priority.

2.8 Clause 9.5.6, page 341, lines 38-40, page 342, lines 2-7 and 10-11:

The text in the Description column contains attribute names in the wrong
font in all  but two rows, and in two cases (Contents "right" and "bottom")
the word "attribute" is missing. I doubt that there is any ambiguity in the
current text, so correction is not a priority.

2.9 Clause 9.5.6, page 342, lines 18 and 29:

Two cases of wrong font in attribute examples, at the end of each of these
two paragraphs. I doubt that there is any ambiguity in the current text, so
correction is not a priority.

3. COR1, Clause 14.7.9, page 508, line 22

I think that "country" should actually be "number:country". I doubt that
there is any ambiguity in the current text, so correction is not a priority.

4. COR1: Clause 15.4.7, page 565, line 12 and Clause 15.4.8, page 565, line
24

The removal of references to "[CSS3Text]" has left a number of "See also"s
which should all have been corrected to "See". I doubt that there is any
ambiguity in the current text, so correction is not a priority.

5. COR2, Clause 7.7.1, "Copy Outline Levels", page 163, line 15

The correction contains a wrong font error. In the first bullet point
"false" should be "false" (in fixed pitch). I doubt that there is any
ambiguity in the current text, so correction is not a priority.

6. COR2, Clause 8.1.3, "Cell Current Currency", page 188, line 4

The correction contains a wrong font error. One instance of "office:value"
should be "office:value" (in fixed pitch). I doubt that there is any
ambiguity in the current text, so correction is not a priority.

7. COR2, Clause 9.4.6, page 323, line 3

The previous correction includes Clause references for each of the
cross-referenced attributes. Should there not be Clause references for the
first two cross-referenced attributes?

8. Clause 15.22.8, page 650, line 23

The phrase "with a end angle" should be "with an end angle". I doubt that
there is any ambiguity in the current text, so correction is not a priority.

Francis Cave

Convenor

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg6/attachments/20121207/bc491e68/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IS 26300 2006 + COR1 COR2 AMD1 faux change-tracked DRAFT 1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 3522922 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg6/attachments/20121207/bc491e68/attachment-0001.pdf>