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

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

This message and those it replies to are designed to be read in HTML format.  It is not possible to understand the message if viewed in plaintext.
 
I have indicated the actions taken on all of the defects reported in the two messages, below, with in-line comments.
 
For many, I have added TRIAGE - NO FIX comments.  If anyone on WG6 has a strong preference for acting on those, and also producing the requisite COR3 to align with them at ISO/IEC JTC1, please make that known before ODF 1.1 Errata 01 WD06 is produced.  If these are to be repaired, I would prefer that it be done before the mandatory public review of an ODF 1.1 Errata 01 Committee Specification Draft.
 
- Dennis
 
From: sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz] On Behalf Of Francis Cave
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 15:40
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
 
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.
ACTION: This discrepancy and its repair is accounted for in Appendix C of ODF 1.1 Errata 01 WD05.
 
The minor issue is a wrong font in the final paragraph of new Appendix F, where an attribute name should be in monospaced font.
ACTION: This is corrected in ODF 1.1 Errata 01 WD05 and also reflected in Appendix C.
 
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
 
I have abbreviated the following message and inserted responses indicating the action taken, if any:
 
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.”
 
ACTION: changed to "The link references that folder."  OFFICE-3814.
 
 
2.1 Clause 9.5.3, page 333, line 16:
 
“are describing” should be “describes”; “and or” should be “or”
 
ACTION: full correction of the grammar and "and/or", OFFICE-3815.
 
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..
 
ACTION: 9.5.3/Enhanced Path (page 333) corrected to the recommended form, OFFICE-3816.
ACTION: 9.5.3 (page 334) I can't find this particular problem on page 334.  I see "a implied" for Command U (won't fix), "is defining" and "a ellipse" for Command A (already fixed), "a implied" for Command B (already fixed), "a implied" for Command V (already fixed).  I note that Commands X and Y are badly worded and I have no idea what they mean.  We can get something in here for WD06 if someone can figure out what is needed.  The corresponding table in ODF 1.2 is no help whatsoever.
ACTION: 9.5.3/Text Areas (page 336) corrected to the recommended form, OFFICE-3816.
ACTION: 9.5.3/Glue Points (page 336) corrected to the recommended form, OFFICE-3816
ACTION: 9.5.6/Handle Position (page 341) corrected to the recommended form, OFFICE-3816
ACTION: I did a complete search for occurrences of "$".  In addition to some in examples of the feature in question, I found a number of places where in-text references to sections of other specification use "$" instead of " §" in IS 26300. Amazing.  Not fixing.
 
COR1 attempts to correct it in two places, on pages 336 and 341, to the following:
 
[ … ]
 
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.
TRIAGE - NO FIX.
 
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.
TRIAGE - NO FIX. (unless this is coincidentally caught already)
 
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.
TRIAGE - NO FIX. (though the wrong quote symbols could be fixed in the example too).
 
2.6 Clause 9.5.3, page 336, line 25:
 
ACTION: Implemented in WD05
 
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” “
 
 
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.
TRIAGE - NO FIX. (It is messy though.)
 
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.
TRIAGE - NO FIX. (Another one that would work better if properly formatted.)
 
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.
TRIAGE - NO FIX. (Ick)
 
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.
 
TRIAGE - NO FIX.  I assume you mean in the phrase "If a country is not specified, …"  (in case it survives triage)
 
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.
TRIAGE - NO FIX.  Yes, though I think there is no problem.
 
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.
Not an Issue for ODF 1.1 Errata 01.  This is identified in Appendix C.
 
 
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.
Not an Issue for ODF 1.1 Errata 01.  This is identified in Appendix C.
 
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?
TRIAGE - NO FIX.  Yes, that would be more consistent.
 
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.
TRIAGE - NO FIX.  
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg6/attachments/20130106/50afd4a3/attachment-0001.htm>