PLEASE PROOF: Final Drafts of 29500-1:2015 and 29500-4:2015 Posted to the SC 34/WG4 Site for Proofing. Feedback due by 2015-07-10

[Rex Jaeschke]

Regarding #187, notesMaster vs. notes master:

 

The text as balloted in the COR was “notesMaster” set in schema-type font to indicate the element type. (This was cloned directly from 19.3.1.24, “handoutMaster”.)

 

It seems to me that “notesMaster slide” means “a slide described by an element of type notesMaster”, and that seems to me to be equivalent to “a notes master slide”.

 

I propose we not make any change here. However, if anyone feels strongly about making the change proposed by Murata-san, then for consistency we’d need a new DR to make the corresponding change to 19.3.1.24, “handoutMaster”.

 

Comments please.

 

Rex

 

 

 

From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 7:51 PM
To: SC 34 WG4
Subject: Re: PLEASE PROOF: Final Drafts of 29500-1:2015 and 29500-4:2015 Posted to the SC 34/WG4 Site for Proofing. Feedback due by 2015-07-10

 

 

 

2015-07-10 4:32 GMT+09:00 Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com <mailto:rex at rexjaeschke.com> >:

 

snip

 

#155

 

The COR is correct, but the consolidated text does not 

incorporate this change.

 

Rex> Disagree; I see the fix applied in both the DOCX and PDF versions.

 

Agreed. 

This cha

#187

 

Is notesMaster actually a notes master?  This is for 

both the DCOR text and the consolidated text.

 

Rex> I don’t understand your question. Are your suggesting the DR resolution in this regard is incorrect?

 

 

The last sentence in this para should end with  "a notes master slide" rather 

than "a notesMaster slide".

 

Regards,

Makoto

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20150712/c5c8488d/attachment.html>