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

Sun Dec 16 01:01:13 CET 2012

Dear colleagues,

Four volunteers in the JIS ODF committee will start the
revision work very soon.  We plan to have the first
draft by January 22, and then will provide feedback
to WG6.

The amount of pages touched by COR1, COR2, and AMD1
is about 80 pages.

Regards,
Makoto

2012/12/8 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> On December 14, the Japanese ODF committee will have
> a meeting to revise JIS ODF, which is technically identical
> to 26300.  We will start translation based on Francis' draft
> and review it by comparing COR1, COR2, AMD1 and
> his draft.
>
> We are very grateful to this Christmas present from
> St. Francis.
>
> Regards,
> Makoto
>
> 2012/12/8 Francis Cave <francis at franciscave.com>:
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sc34wg6 mailing list
>> sc34wg6 at vse.cz
>> http://mailman.vse.cz/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg6
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>
> Makoto

-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto