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

Tue Apr 12 19:29:37 CEST 2016

Certainly, something has been lost in the first conversion to PDF, and it's unfortunately that there is a page break between the two rows.

As I have no control over how the PDF generator handles this, I don't see there is anything I can do re this.

Rex

-----Original Message-----
From: caroline arms [mailto:caroline.arms at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 7:31 AM
To: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>
Cc: SC 34 WG4 <e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org>
Subject: Re: PLEASE PROOF: Drafts of 29500-1/-4:2016; feedback due by the end of 2016-04-29

Murata-san,

17.4.22 does look better in Word than in the PDF.

17.4.24 does look better in Word than in the PDF.

I agree that the diagram in 17.4.26 looks better in Word than in the PDF, but for me the mis-alignment is not serious enough to affect understanding.  Also, the mis-alignment changes nature if I zoom the PDF View.

    Caroline

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:03 AM, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
> 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 ??????? </w:t> </w:r>
>>> >
>>> > followed by:
>>> > In this run, both  English  and   ???????   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 ??????? </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