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

[Rex Jaeschke]

See my replies inline. Rex


-----Original Message-----
From: caroline arms [mailto:caroline.arms at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 5:59 PM
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,

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.

Rex> In the table entry for attribute fieldCodes (Field Switches), I see the following, non-normative: "[Rationale: Legacy word processors used fields to represent embedded objects - this
element stores the field switches not explicitly defined for embeddings so as not to use the fidelity of their contents. end rationale]"

I'm inclined to agree with your analysis.



Items 26-34 look OK.

Item 35.  Mostly OK, but missing an added space in ancestorstructured in xPath row in attributes table

Rex> I agree.




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".

Rex> I agree.


     Caroline