An Analysis of the Issues Found during Review of the Consolidated Reprint Draft, and the Question of Producing another (small, quick) COR

[Rex Jaeschke]

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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20150722/38ea6644/attachment-0001.html>