PLEASE PROOF: Drafts of 29500-1/-4:2016; feedback due by the end of 2016-04-29

[MURATA Makoto]

I find similar discrepancies in 17.4.22 and 17.4.24.

The table in 17.4.26 looks nice in the Word version,
but looks broken in the PDF version.

Regards,
Makoto

2016-04-12 12:50 GMT+09:00 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>:

> The diagram in 17.4.10 in the Word version and that
> in the PDF version look different.  The same discrepancy
> appear in 17.4.11.
>
> Regards,
> Makoto
>
> 2016-04-12 6:59 GMT+09:00 caroline arms <caroline.arms at gmail.com>:
>
>> Rex,
>>
>> Carrying on through Cor 1.
>>
>> Items 22-24 look OK
>>
>> Item 25 looks OK wrt Cor 1, but I'm suspicious there might be another
>> problem.  Should "not to use the fidelity" be "not to lose the
>> fidelity"?  If that is not what is meant, some clarification is
>> probably in order.  The current wording is confusing.
>>
>> Items 26-34 look OK.
>>
>> Item 35.  Mostly OK, but missing an added space in ancestorstructured
>> in xPath row in attributes table
>>
>> Items 36-39 look OK
>>
>> Item 40 looks OK, but I suspect a typo that was not noticed before.  I
>> think "default gallery hall" should be "default gallery shall".
>>
>>
>> Time for dinner.
>>
>>      Caroline
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:26 AM, caroline arms <caroline.arms at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Rex,
>> >
>> > Moving on to checking Part 1 draft against Cor 1  (Cor 3 in the DR Log).
>> >
>> > Items 1-4 look OK.
>> >
>> > Item 5 looks OK, but I think the inserted text could do with a link to
>> > 18.2.10 for extLst
>> >
>> > Items 6-13 look OK.
>> >
>> > Item 14.  One insertion was missed, the comma after i.e.
>> >
>> > Items 15-16 look OK
>> >
>> > Item 17 looks OK, except:
>> >   missed substitution of "1" for "on" in beforeAutospacing example
>> >
>> > Items 18-20 look OK
>> >
>> > Item 21 seems to have two problems
>> > 1.  The cstheme row in table on page 303 has some extra periods
>> > compared to Cor 1.
>> >
>> > 2.  This is not a problem with copying from Cor 1 to Part 1, but
>> > applies to Cor 1 as well.  Unless I'm going blind (or am just confused
>> > by Arabic scripts/fonts, which other readers may be), I am seeing two
>> > instances of the same example markup that are explained to have
>> > DIFFERENT results.
>> >
>> > The first instance is the first example in the subclause 17.3.2.26
>> > <w:r>
>> > <w:rPr>
>> > <w:rFonts w:ascii="Courier New" w:cs="Times New Roman" />
>> > </w:rPr>
>> > <w:t>English العربية </w:t>
>> > </w:r>
>> >
>> > followed by:
>> > In this run, both “English” and “ العربية ” should be in ASCII font
>> > slot, according to the two-step algorithm
>> > below. Therefore, both of them should be in the Courier New font face.
>> >
>> > The second instance is immediately before the attributes table
>> > <w:r>
>> > <w:rPr>
>> > <w:rFonts w:ascii="Courier New" w:cs="Times New Roman" />
>> > </w:rPr>
>> > <w:t>English العربية </w:t>
>> > </w:r>
>> >
>> > followed by:
>> > This text run must therefore use the Courier New font for all
>> > characters in the range U+0000 to U+007F, and
>> > must use the Times New Roman font for all characters in the Complex
>> > Script range.
>> >
>> > I have managed to download DR 9-0040, but do not have time now to
>> > follow it through to see if I can figure out when/why the duplication
>> > appeared or which might be correct.
>> >
>> >    I'll try and get to some more of Cor 1 later today or tomorrow.
>> >
>> >    Caroline
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> I just posted the following new documents to the WG4 website:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ·       N 0333: 29500-1:2016 in DOCX and PDF, schemas and other
>> electronic
>> >> annexes [61MB]
>> >>
>> >> ·       N 0334: 29500-4:2016 in DOCX and PDF, schemas [12MB]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> These documents are 29500-1/-4:2012 with CORs 1 and 2 applied.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please post any corrections/suggestions to this list.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> About a year ago, we tried to publish 29500-1/-4:2015 after having
>> >> incorporated COR1, but as we found errors, we produced a COR2. I built
>> on
>> >> last year’s work by simply applying COR2 to what we already had. That
>> made
>> >> some new changes and undid a few from COR1.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> For your convenience, CORs 1 and 2 are attached.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I have applied all the editorial corrections reported (especially those
>> >> documented in the Beijing meeting minutes from 2015).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I updated the Part 4 pointers into Part 1 to reflect clause-number
>> changes.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I’ve asked Murata-san to get me the latest schemas, but as nothing was
>> >> changed in that regard for COR2, what I posted today should be the
>> final
>> >> schemas.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The review period ends on 2016-04-29. Hopefully, we can move these
>> drafts to
>> >> DIS ballots during the 2016-05-10 teleconference. We already got SC
>> 34’s
>> >> approval to do this at the Beijing Plenary. All being well, the ISO
>> and Ecma
>> >> editions will be published before year’s end.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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/20160412/b9e38788/attachment-0001.html>