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

[Rex Jaeschke]

See my replies inline. Thanks, Rex



-----Original Message-----
From: caroline arms [mailto:caroline.arms at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 8:32 AM
To: Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>
Cc: SC 34 WG4 <e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org>; TC45 <e-TC45 at ecma-international.org>
Subject: Re: PLEASE PROOF: Drafts of 29500-1/-4:2016; feedback due by the end of 2016-04-29

Rex,

Thoughts after going through Cor 2 for Part 1.

Items 2-10 look OK.

Item 5 results in new sub-clause numbers from 20.1.10.41

The spacing in the headings for sub-clauses 20.1.10.42 through
20.1.10.87 looks odd.  Will need re-checking at whatever stage the add/delete indications get removed.

Rex> Yes, I see what you mean. I'll review those when I adopt the tracked changes.


Item 1 provides two puzzles.  As well as replacing the diagram in
17.7.2 with one that is laid out slightly differently, the diagram appears in your draft to add a row/shape for "Numbering."  However,
29500:2012 has that row.  So I think your new document needs a different "before" diagram.  DR 12-0005 includes some substitutions from Murata-san from the BRM time, and his substitution does not have
the numbering row.   

Rex> The figure in 2012 was correct, but the bottom piece of each row was truncated. COR 1 contained a correction for this, but was missing the "Numbering" row. So, COR 2 provided a complete and correct replacement figure.

When I created this new draft, I applied COR2 to the version of 2012 that already had COR 1 applied. As such, the current draft uses the (incorrect) COR1 figure as the "before" diagram, NOT the 2012 version, so you are correct. However, when I adopt the tracked changes, the incorrect COR1 figure will go away, and the replacement will be correct. So no action is needed here.



As I investigated this oddity, I noticed that the text description below does not match the ordering of style application shown in the
diagram wrt paragraph and numbering.   And the diagram in L.1.8.10
Style Application puts Numbering above Paragraph.  The textual description suggests that application of numbering and paragraph styles are somewhat interwoven.  Maybe the diagram Murata-san supplied was intended to address that by dropping the separate Numbering row.

If we want to address the inconsistency of the diagrams in 17.7.2 and
L.1.8.10 that would be a new DR, I think.

Rex> I'm inclined to agree on a new DR, as the problem COR1 and now COR2 were trying to solve was to fix the truncated row pictures only.



Aside on normative reference ISO/IEC 14496-22
  Normative reference is to ISO/IEC 14496-22:2009.  In the text, I see the standard mentioned without a year, with year 2007, and with year 2008. There is now a 2015 version.  Am not sure whether all of this matters and am sure it is not worth wasting time on at this point.
But may be worth a look over in the future.

Rex> That certainly sounds inconsistent. I propose adding this to the general editorial DR for the next revision of Part 1




     To be continued.   Caroline