[sc34wg4] Re: COR3 issue: ST_PitchFamily

[Rex Jaeschke]

Thanks John, I’ll study this carefully making sure I understand all the steps before I add the changes to the DR log (and subsequently to COR3B).

 

In the meantime, the resolutions for both DR-0037 and DR-0055 both went into COR2, which was used to produce 29500-1/-4:2012. So their impact has long been published.

 

Rex

 

From: John Haug [mailto:johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 7:01 PM
To: Rex Jaeschke <rex at RexJaeschke.com>; SC 34 WG4 <e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org>
Subject: RE: [sc34wg4] Re: COR3 issue: ST_PitchFamily

 

(Re-adding the group as I’ve ended up with a summary of all the changes for DR 09-0055 arising from the reconsideration of 09-0037 and 09-0055 and from the discussions in e-mail and at the Beijing meeting.)

 

Were both 0037 and 0055 originally closed in COR2?  I thought 0055 was in COR3 but I could be wrong and the doc has already been updated to Status: Further Consideration Required.  If it was for COR3, then 0055 simply needs to be re-applied after 0037 is applied (reinstating the deleted attributes).  If it was for COR2, 0055 probably needs to be re-opened and re-applied.  29500-1:2012 does not have prose for the new ST created by 0055, but it does exist in the printed schema (A.4.1), so maybe it was from COR2.  All the other changes 0055 made are non-existent because it edited attributes that 0037 deleted.  In Part 1.

 

For Part 4, 0055 only mentions changes to schema adding ST_PitchFamily, but not to 16.5.3 Changed attribute for font element (Part 1, 19.2.1.13) which has the full listing of values in the pitchFamily attribute and still says it's of type xsd:byte (even though the schema says it's of type ST_PitchFamily).  Fortunately, there are no other pitchFamily occurrences in Part 4.

 

So, what I think needs to happen is:

*       First apply revised changes for 0037

o   Reinstate the three attributes in 19.2.1.13 font, one of which is pitchFamily

o   See “DR 09-0037 redux.docx” attached to my mail in this thread from 24 Sept 2015

*       Then apply revised changes for 0055:

o   Part 1: add prose for ST_PitchFamily

o   Part 1: ensure ST_PitchFamily exists in digital and printed XSD and RNG

o   Part 1: ensure schema for CT_TextFont at pitchFamily in A.4.1 points to ST_PitchFamily

o   Part 1: edit text of pitchFamily attributes to point to ST_PitchFamily in: 19.2.1.13 font, 21.1.2.3.1 cs, 21.1.2.3.3 ea, 21.1.2.3.7 latin, 21.1.2.3.10 sym, 21.1.2.4.6 buFont

o   Part 4: ensure ST_PitchFamily exists in digital and printed XSD and RNG

o   Part 4: ensure schema for CT_TextFont at pitchFamily in A.4.1 points to ST_PitchFamily

o   Part 4: edit text of pitchFamily attribute in 16.5.3 to make the same changes as in Part 1

 

I have attached a full write-up of the DR 09-0055 changes.  This assumes none of the original 0055 changes had been partially made to 29500-1,-4:2012.  While changes will be made against the 2012 edition, and that has partial changes, I think it’s best for clarity and for the historical record to list the entire set of expected changes.

 

You added a new block of text to the DR log for 0055 titled “2015-09-21/24 Beijing Meeting:” which discussed both 0037 and 0055.  Not sure how to want to alter that so both DRs reference each other.  Most of the e-mail discussion pasted in there is more relevant to 0037.  If you decide to paste in the contents of the attached DR 09-0055 changes v4.docx, then it’s going to largely duplicate (though with minor tweaks) many pages of pasted proposed resolution.  Maybe that’s OK, just FYI.

 

John

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20151004/647d482e/attachment.html>