[JTC1SC34 WG4] Re: SII (IL) comments on ISO-29500

[Rex Jaeschke]

I will respond to Amit re his misunderstanding about the meaning of certain DR Status values and also to ask him if he wants us to re-open 09-0200 (which has already been published in COR1).

 

Rex

 

 

From: Chris Rae [mailto:Chris.Rae at microsoft.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 4:09 PM
To: Makoto; e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: RE: [JTC1SC34 WG4] Re: SII (IL) comments on ISO-29500

 

Hi all – 09-0199 was waiting on me, and oddly enough we got a proposed solution together for that exact DR over the weekend. I’ll send it through this afternoon.

 

That’s an interesting clarification on 09-0200 – what do we (WG4) typically do in this case?

 

I didn’t include Amit on the reply, but feel free to forward.

 

Chris

 

From: Makoto [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] 
Sent: 21 November 2010 01:15
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Fwd: [JTC1SC34 WG4] Re: SII (IL) comments on ISO-29500

 



sent from my iPhone


Begin forwarded message:

差出人: Amit Aronovitch <aronovitch at gmail.com>
日時: 2010年11月21日17:38:03 JST
宛先: eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp
Cc: Revital Maor <tkina at sii.org.il>, Dani Ilan <electrical at sii.org.il>
件名: [JTC1SC34 WG4] Re: SII (IL) comments on ISO-29500

Dear Editor,

Thanks for handling our problem reports, most of which were satisfactorily fixed.

There are two issues which I believe to be still open.

1) DR-09-0199: Is marked "further consideration required".
  I would like to know if something is not clear in my report.
  If the problem is that my suggested fix is not good enough, I would like to know the reason, so I can improve it.
  You can add my personal email as contact address for this issue.

2) DR-09-0200: It seems that my report was misunderstood.
   The problem with the current version is the missing information, not the choice of words. 
   The practical fact is that implementors have to swap left and right margin in half of the pages, but it is not specified *which half* they have to swap. 

   With the current (June 2009) fix, they might be able to make an educated guess, based on the newly added note, but this is insufficient in my opinion.

    Perhaps "facing" should be replaced with "facing right in LTR documents, and facing left in RTL documents", but I believe that would *still be confusing* (because it depends on the way you hold the pages).

    A better solution might be to say "even numbered" as I originally suggested, and change the comment (the one that was added in June 2009) as follows 

[Note: "Even numbered" refers to the physical order of the pages. Page numbering can be set arbitrarily, so the flip might not always be on pages with even-numbered labels. end note]

p.s.

  I would like to know what is the proper procedure for reporting more problems.

thanks,
    Amit Aronovitch   aronovitch at gmail.com
    Member of SII technical committee 2109

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20101124/e8ff5d3f/attachment.htm>