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

[MURATA Makoto]

#23

(§17.18.102) is missing in the consolidated text.

#41

"ancestorstructured" in the first para of the consolidated text should
be "ancestor structured".

#68

"application-defined" in the DCOR; "implementation-defined" in the
consolidated text.  Which is correct?

#70

"it is in an" in the DCOR; "it is an" in the consolidated text.  Which
is correct?

Regards,
Makoto

2015-07-16 16:17 GMT+09:00 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>:

> #23
>
> (§17.18.102) is missing in the consolidated text.
>
> #41
>
> "ancestorstructured" in the first para of the consolidated text should
> be "ancestor structured".
>
> It remains to check  #42 to #145.
>
> Regards,
> Makoto
>
> 2015-07-15 19:39 GMT+09:00 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>:
>
>> It appears that at least a table and four figures in the agreed DR
>> 12-0025 log
>> has not been correctly incorporated in the DCOR and thus the consolidated
>> text.    Sine these errors exist in the DCOR, I am afraid that we have to
>> submit another DR and wait for the next revision.
>>
>> The table in #49 of the COR differs from that in the DR Log.
>> The figure in #50 of the COR differs from that in the DR Log.
>> The figure in #245 of the COR differs from that in the DR Log.
>> The figure in #246 of the COR differs from that in the DR Log.
>> The figure in #252 of the COR differs from that in the DR Log.
>>
>> So far, I have only compared the COR and the consolidated text.  But
>> this example indicates that we should have more carefully compared
>> the DR log and the COR.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Makoto
>>
>> 2015-07-13 3:55 GMT+09:00 Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>:
>>
>>> #216
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed; that sentence was in the COR but not in the consolidated draft.
>>> I’ll add it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #222
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, I got it wrong in the XSD, but right in the RelaxNG. I’ll fix
>>> that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rex
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *MURATA
>>> Makoto
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2015 6:36 AM
>>>
>>> *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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #216
>>>
>>>
>>> A sentence should be added to the first para.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  This value is used as one piece of information to guide selection of a
>>> similar alternate font if the
>>>
>>> desired font is unavailable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #222
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The default value is not "nlCheck" but "off"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #222 is my last so far.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Makoto
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-07-11 8:21 GMT+09:00 John Haug <johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com>:
>>>
>>> Rex, if you don’t mind ignoring your request for comments by tomorrow, I
>>> can look at some of these next week.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which items did you review, Murata-san?  You said you started with #146
>>> (18.17.7.242, I believe) and the highest number you commented on is #198.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Rex Jaeschke [mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 9, 2015 12:33 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> See my responses in-line. I disagree with one and don’t understand one
>>> other.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rex
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com <eb2mmrt at gmail.com>]
>>> *On Behalf Of *MURATA Makoto
>>> *Sent:* Friday, July 3, 2015 9:27 AM
>>> *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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #198
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This change was correctly incorporated, but the indentation in the
>>>
>>> consolidated Part 1 is too much.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rex> Agreed; will fix.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Makoto
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-07-03 17:25 GMT+09:00 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>:
>>>
>>> Rex,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I began with #146 of Part1.  I will send more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #152
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The second bullet in #152 in the COR to Part 1 lacks a verb "is".
>>>
>>> Although this does not exist in the COR, I think that this
>>>
>>> editorial error can be fixed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rex> Agreed; will fix.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #169
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This change was correctly incorporated, but the layout
>>>
>>> is broken. See 18.17.7.342 in Part 1.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rex> Agreed; the trailing newline should be restored. Will fix.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #174-176
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "unit face value" should be replaced by "units face value".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rex> Agreed; will fix.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #177
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This change was correctly incorporated, but the layout
>>>
>>> is broken. See 18.17.7.356 in Part 1.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rex> Agreed; the trailing newline should be restored. Will fix.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #187
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is *notes*Master 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Makoto
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-06-04 0:58 GMT+09:00 Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>:
>>>
>>> Some months ago, balloting ended on CORs for Parts 1 and 4 of 29500.
>>> Both ballots passed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have applied the edits in each COR to the corresponding standard from
>>> 2012 to create a 2015 edition. As this new edition contains no new material
>>> beyond what was adopted in the ballots, no further balloting is necessary;
>>> this is an editorial task.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> However, before I submit the final versions to ISO for publication, I’m
>>> giving WG4 (and Ecma TC45) members a chance to review the final drafts to
>>> make sure I applied all the edits correctly. In the case of Part 1, there
>>> are some 250 sets of edits. I don’t expect members to check all of them,
>>> but if each member randomly chose 10 of them and checked those, we’ll
>>> likely get good coverage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The changes are tracked, and both DOCX and PDF versions are included for
>>> each Part. Don’t be concerned if you see some bright blue edits, as they
>>> will be “fixed” when I finally adopt the tracked changes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Part 4 contains some manual pointers into Part 1, but these have not yet
>>> been updated. I will do that once Part 1’s tracked changes have been
>>> adopted, and that Part is frozen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have posted to Livelink the 49-MB and 13-MB zip files as documents
>>> 2015-0309 and 2015-0310, respectively. Only registered members can access
>>> these.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rex Jaeschke, 29500 Project Editor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>>>
>>> Makoto
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>>>
>>> Makoto
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>>>
>>> Makoto
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>>
>> Makoto
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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/20150716/6124e8e6/attachment-0001.html>