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

[Francis Cave]

Hi Chris

Yes, 13-0015 is the more logical place to record the color/fill discrepancy
- I should have thought of that.

Kind regards,

Francis




-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Rae [mailto:Chris.Rae at microsoft.com] 
Sent: 28 April 2014 19:57
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: RE: DR 13:0013: Proposed solution to "the purple ones"

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.

Chris

-----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
§17.13.6.2). 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,

Francis



-----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
(https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documents/2013/DR-13-0013.docx
) 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.

Chris