DR 13:0013: Proposed solution to "the purple ones"

Chris Rae Chris.Rae at microsoft.com
Mon Apr 28 20:57:13 CEST 2014

Well spotted on the color/fill discrepancy - I just checked in our own MS Office implementer notes and we do indeed have a note about this exact behaviour.

However, I think we shouldn't resolve this in 13-0013 - we should resolve it in 13-0015 (https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documents/2013/DR-13-0015.docx?cid=c8ba0861dc5e4adc) which is devoted to copy-paste errors in attribute/element descriptions.

Unless anyone has any objections, I'll send Rex the details to add to 13-0015.


-----Original Message-----
From: Francis Cave [mailto:francis at franciscave.com] 
Sent: 25 April 2014 04:12
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: RE: DR 13:0013: Proposed solution to "the purple ones"

Hi Chris

Excellent work! 

I have only one query regarding your proposed changes, and it concerns the original text of the description paragraph that you've altered for @themeFill on Shading properties in §17.3.5: I think "the color attribute shall be used" should read "the fill attribute shall be used". If I'm right, this is a separate defect, but we might as well correct it while we're about it.

I have investigated the two attributes that appear to be listed in error in the "purple bucket" list (@colFirst and @colLast on element bookmarkStart in § You are correct. This was due to an editing error in preparation of the Defect Report, as they already appear in the first list (where you have allocated them to the "green bucket") and should not have been duplicated in the later list.

Kind regards,


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Rae [mailto:Chris.Rae at microsoft.com]
Sent: 24 April 2014 21:10
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: DR 13:0013: Proposed solution to "the purple ones"

In Berlin we proposed breaking down DR 13-0013 into two DRs: one to address the editorial changes (the ones highlighted purple in the breakdown of the DR I circulated) and one to address the rest. I'm going to work with Rex next week on the mechanics of splitting the DR, but in the meantime I've written up some proposed edits to address the editorial defects.

The issue I'm addressing in the DR
) is:

'In a number of cases, the words "If this element" with "is omitted", "is not present" or similar are used in descriptions of attributes. These are potential sources of confusion for implementers.'

The DR then lists 32 attributes, covering 16 subsections. In some instances the text did correctly use the word "element", and in these cases I added text to the top-level element description explaining the behaviour and removed the clause from the attribute description. In some, it should have read "attribute" and I've modified the text to reflect that. In some, there was more complex inheritance rules (in styles or latent styles) and I've added text to cover that.

I believe that two of the attributes named in the DR are listed in error (@colFirst and @colLast on element bookmarkStart) and have made no changes to those attribute descriptions.

Some schema changes were necessary, but they were only to include values already specified in prose, so I believe them to still be editorial.

I've cut down the text a great deal but it's still thirteen pages and as such is most easily reviewed offline, but I'd be happy to talk through it on a  call or at the next face-to-face.


More information about the sc34wg4 mailing list