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: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:24 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

and starting again...

Item 84 looks OK

Item 85 looks OK wrt Cor 1.  However I notice a minor grammatical
problem: "always formula" should be "always a formula" in example just above Attributes table.  Personally I stumbled over the use of the verb "defines" in "This element defines a defined name..." -- but I can understand why changing that doesn't make sense for the sake of consistency.  Although I see that 18.3.1.37 does begin "This element specifies...".

Rex> I'll add the article.



Items 86-88 look OK

Item 89 looks OK wrt Cor 1.  However, I don't understand how the markup specifies the location of the break at C3 in the example.

Rex> I don’t understand what C3 is either.




Items 90-93 look OK

Items 94-95 look OK except that "can not" should be closed up, I assume.

Rex> Yes, two occurrences were missed, and there are others elsewhere, as well. I'll fix them.



Item 96 looks OK (although I didn't check everything in detail.
Except the color in the &K row in the Formatting Code table doesn't show in the draft.

Rex> It's missing from the PDF because it's also missing from the DOCX. I'll fix that.



Items 97-98 look OK

    Caroline