FW: An Analysis of the Issues Found during Review of the Consolidated Reprint Draft, and the Question of Producing another (small, quick) COR
John Haug
johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com
Fri Aug 14 23:34:36 CEST 2015
Back to the WG 4 list. Murata-san, Rex, Chris and I discussed these items on the recent teleconference and in subsequent misc e-mails. I’d like to get the results of all the public and private e-mails back to one place with a short list. Please look through the below for the private discussion that branched off the public e-mail from Rex. The summary of the items are in my mail Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2015 7:21 PM. A few are resolved with editorial corrections. The three that appear to remain are: ST_OnOff (missing ST prose), ST_PitchFamily (DR 09-0055 vs. 09-0037), ST_Hint (missing enum value). I will start a separate mail thread on each because each is detailed and trying to deal with them all in a scattered fashion here will be confusing. For simplicity, I’ll use the preceding ST names as the subjects.
John
From: John Haug
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 5:19 PM
To: 'MURATA Makoto' <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>
Cc: Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>; Chris Rae <chrisrae at exchange.microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: An Analysis of the Issues Found during Review of the Consolidated Reprint Draft, and the Question of Producing another (small, quick) COR
Hearing no other comments, it seems the short list of three items (my previous mail just below) is what actually remains for technical discussion. Any objections to now sharing the results of our research to the SC 34 mailing list? I’d like to forward this mail thread, then start a separate e-mail for each of the three topics to provide a separate place to discuss each. This and the previous general COR problems threads are long and complicated enough; they served their purpose to identify the problems, adderss the easy ones and identify what remains. I have some analysis related to the first item (ST_OnOff) ready to go.
From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com<mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com> [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:13 PM
To: John Haug <johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com<mailto:johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com>>
Cc: Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com<mailto:rex at rexjaeschke.com>>; Chris Rae <chrisrae at exchange.microsoft.com<mailto:chrisrae at exchange.microsoft.com>>; MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp<mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>>
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Issues Found during Review of the Consolidated Reprint Draft, and the Question of Producing another (small, quick) COR
My mistake. I appear to have used a wrong version of Part 1.
I am now checking Part 4 by first computing diffs between strict
schemas and transitional schemas and then comparing the result and Part 4.
Regards,
Makoto
2015-08-12 7:49 GMT+09:00 John Haug <johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com<mailto:johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com>>:
18.18.69 ST_SheetViewType does exist in prose in 29500-1:2012 and the changes in DR 12-0010 (see WG 4 N 0251) are in Rex’s Cor with DR traceback (though they’re tagged as DR 12-0009, which is the first of the sequential set of 10 terminology DRs filed by the UK) in WG 4 N 0299. Was there an error in your comparison?
So I think we still have three items from the list below: ST_OnOff1 (ST prose missing or intentional), ST_PitchFamily (DR 09-0055 vs. 09-0037), ST_Hint (missing enum value). Is that correct?
From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com<mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com> [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com<mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com>] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2015 5:02 PM
To: Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com<mailto:rex at rexjaeschke.com>>
Cc: John Haug <johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com<mailto:johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com>>; Chris Rae <chrisrae at exchange.microsoft.com<mailto:chrisrae at exchange.microsoft.com>>; MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp<mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>>
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Issues Found during Review of the Consolidated Reprint Draft, and the Question of Producing another (small, quick) COR
I created a list of all simple types in Part 1 XSD schemas and that of all in 29500-1.
Attached please find the difference.
ST_SheetViewType exists only in sml,xsd. The other difference
is ST_PitchFamily, which has been discussed. All other simple types
in XSD schemas are covered by prose, and vice versa.
I think that we need a subclause when there is no such
for some simple type.
Regards,
Makoto
2015-08-09 6:27 GMT+09:00 Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com<mailto:rex at rexjaeschke.com>>:
See my responses inline, Rex
From: John Haug [mailto:johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com<mailto:johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com>]
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2015 7:21 PM
To: Rex Jaeschke (rex at RexJaeschke.com<mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com>) <rex at RexJaeschke.com<mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com>>; MURATA, Makoto (eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp<mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>) <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp<mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>>; Chris Rae <chrisrae at exchange.microsoft.com<mailto:chrisrae at exchange.microsoft.com>>
Subject: RE: An Analysis of the Issues Found during Review of the Consolidated Reprint Draft, and the Question of Producing another (small, quick) COR
Apologies for the delayed reply to this and the other related e-mails. I went through all the mail I had about remaining problems with DRs in the COR and this is what I have found. I think there are two DRs partially or fully reflected in the COR that create problems and need to be studied again. [Regarding one of those issues (DRs 09-0040/09-0037) and the recent mail among Rex, Murata-san and I (“A second COR for 29500-1 and the type ST_PitchFamily in DML”), I haven’t dug into Murata-san’s thought that DR 09-0037 should have introduced a new complex type, since the whole issue needs to be looked at again.]
Other (from Murata-san’s mail “ST_OnOff1 in shared-commonSimpleTypes.xsd”):
ST_OnOff1 (Part 4)
• MM mail 2015-07-04: in schema but missing from prose? (from Amd.1?)
• 29500-4:2012: defined in schema, neither ST_OnOff1 (“on”, “off”) nor ST_OnOff (union of Boolean & ST_OnOff1) referenced in prose
o 14.5.2 legacy at legacy uses ST_OnOff from Part 1 22.9.2.7; no other uses
• No changes noted in 29500-4-2012-Cor-1-2015 (N 0300)
• ** Does this even need to be added to prose? It’s such a trivial ST, I think not; we don’t always add prose for STs, do we?
Rex> MM seemed to simply point out this one ST that did not have prose. I didn’t take that as a suggestion that we go back and add a subclause for that.
Rex Category 2:
ST_PitchFamily (DR 09-0055, 09-0037)
• DR 09-0055: CT_TextFont at pitchFamily changed to be of new type ST_PitchFamily (missing in DCOR)
• DR 09-0037 already removed CT_TextFont at charset/panose/pitchFamily
• --> Proposed: back out DR 09-0055, re-open it, look at it from scratch
• ** Why was 09-0037 resolved as it was? ("Reviewed Shawn’s email of 2010-03-18. We chose Choice 2, “Remove the attributes from the standard”." The e-mail is the same as in the DR log from 2009-06-17.)
Rex> Yes it looks like we need to reconsider these, and as MM suggested in his mail, “Re: A second COR for 29500-1 and the type ST_PitchFamily in DML”, on 2015-07-30, we NOT include this in the 2nd COR, but rather take our time and fix it next time around. I suggest making a new DR that points to these two.
Style Hierarchy (DR 12-0005, 12-0025)
• --> Rex to paste in correct tables
Rex> Yes
Rex Category 3:
ST_Hint (DR 09-0040)
• DR removed “cs” value
• --> Murata-san to remove "cs" from schemas
• ** Only the value “default” remains; where did “eastAsia” get removed? DR 09-0040 adds lots of text referring to “cs” and “eastAsia” values of the hint attribute for some CTs, which is of type ST_Hint. DR 09-0040 is therefore internally inconsistent and should not be applied as is. I haven’t yet rediscovered why ST_Hint had items removed.
Rex> I just checked MM’s mail, “Leftover from DR 09-0040” of 2015-08-02, and his proposed schema fix only removes cs; eastAsia is still there.
However, on close inspection, the way the Enumeration Value table is written in the COR (see entry #81) is that this is the complete table. As eastAsian was never intended to be removed, I should have shown an empty row after the default row, containing …, indicating that the remainder of the table stays as is. And even though the COR didn’t contain that …, when I applied the COR to 2012, I did NOT remove eastAsian, ‘cos there was no delete (strike-through in red) instruction in the COR to do so.
Regarding, “DR 09-0040 adds lots of text referring to “cs” and “eastAsia” values of the hint attribute for some CTs, which is of type ST_Hint. DR 09-0040 is therefore internally inconsistent and should not be applied as is”, I see there is a cs element APART from the cs enumeration value in ST_Hint. (I also see that eastAsia is also an attribute name as well as an enum value.)
numFmt (DR 14-0006, DR 14-0016)
• Didn’t we discuss this in London, or was it something else? I recall deciding to move the note to the top of all the tables to avoid the concern that it seems to imply only values up to 49 are allowed, by being just below the first table listing IDs up to 49.
Rex> Yes, we resolved this in London and I have fixed it accordingly by moving the note to the top and referring to the tables (plural) below, not just the one ending in 49.
From: Rex Jaeschke [mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 1:22 PM
To: SC 34 WG4 <e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org<mailto:e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org>>
Subject: An Analysis of the Issues Found during Review of the Consolidated Reprint Draft, and the Question of Producing another (small, quick) COR
In mail posted on 2015-07-19, with the subject, “Another DCOR immediately?”, Murata-san raised the question of whether we wanted to produce another COR to sweep up known problems before continuing with the consolidated reprint of 29500.
Here’s my analysis of the situation.
I see three categories of issues being raised:
1. Things in the CORs that were voted on and accepted, but which I failed to incorporate correctly into in the draft consolidated reprint. [editorial]
2. Edits in the DR log that appear to have been accepted by WG4, but did not make it into the corresponding COR, so were not voted on. [substantive]
3. Shortcomings in the resolution of a DR, which will require further deliberation, and subsequent COR processing. [substantive]
I have addressed all the Category 1 issues known to me as of right now. Here then are the remaining issues that I have confirmed:
Category 2 Issues:
a. DR 09-0055 (which was back in COR2 [NOT the most recent COR], and incorporated in 29500:2013), which involved ST_PitchFamily, was resolved incompletely. As discussed in recent mails, “none of the edits proposed in DR 09-0055 after the heading “2011-06-03 Chris Rae:” and before the heading “2011-06-20/22 Berlin Meeting:” were incorporated into COR2, so were not integrated into the resulting new standard edition.”
b. DRs 12-0005 and DR 12-0025 both impact the table in §17.7.2, “Style Hierarchy”. It appears that the row labelled “Numbering” was somehow lost when these two sets of edits were merged.
Category 3 Issues:
a. As part of DR 09-0040, we decided to disallow "cs" as a value of ST_Hint. However, we forgot to change the schemas.
b. DR 14-0006 (§18.8.30, “numFmt (Number Format)”: The added comment appears to discourage the use of values beyond 50. But values up to 81 are defined in this subclause (18.8.31).
There might be others; I recently said I couldn’t locate several that were reported, so they might yet need work.
Regarding the idea of cleaning up these things by having a second COR and then created the consolidated reprint, here are some things to consider:
• We can do a second COR
• We should make such a decision at the Beijing face-to-face meeting (when more members will attend) rather than the preceding teleconference.
• So far, all the known issues needing to be balloted once resolved are in Part 1. However, as Part 4 points to Part 1, delaying publication of Part 1 would also delay that for Part 4.
• Re the timeline for a new COR, if we authorized a new COR at the Beijing meeting, I’d produce it and have WG4 check it, then we’d have a 60-day SC 34-only ballot. Then I’d integrate that into the base spec and produce a new draft 29500-1 for proofing by WG4 (and TC45). Then I’d submit it to ISO for publication sometime in 2016, and by Ecma in June 2016.
Rex
--
Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
Makoto
--
Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
Makoto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20150814/68ce4edf/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the sc34wg4
mailing list