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

[MURATA Makoto]

I am revising my part of JIS ODF. I finished about 70% of my
part.

I find quite a few obsolete references such as CSS2 and HTML4.
But I guess that we should not try to update them at this
stage of the game but should wait for ODF 1.2 DIS.

After I finish incorporating changes in Francis' draft, I
will compare my translation and COR1/COR2/AMD1.

Regards,
Makoto


2012/12/16 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>:
> 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



-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto