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

Sat Jan 5 06:41:54 CET 2013

Good catch.  

I confirm that the link in Appendix E produces a 404 Error.

The OpenDocument Format v1.1 Accessibility Guidelines Version 1.0 is listed on the ODF TC Page.
The document is at <http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/office-accessibility/v1.0/cs01/ODF_Accessibility_Guidelines-v1.0.odt>.

Another way to find it (that I prefer) is via simply 
<http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/office-accessibility/v1.0/>
This allows individuals to choose among available formats.  If there is a concern about the download sizes, that can be discovered by going to the cs01/ subfolder there.

I will turn in a JIRA issue and add the link to the v1.0/ folder to WD05 tomorrow (2013-01-05 here).

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 19:20
To: SC 34/WG 6 mailing list
Subject: Re: An informal draft change-tracked text of IS 26300 + COR1, COR2 and AMD1, with list of possible new issues encountered

Is the link http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/officeaccessibility/guidelines
in Appendix E out of date?

Regards,
Makoto

2012/11/27 Francis Cave <francis at franciscave.com>:
> 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
_______________________________________________
sc34wg6 mailing list
sc34wg6 at vse.cz
http://mailman.vse.cz/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg6