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

Sat Apr 16 13:11:35 CEST 2016

Is it possible to specify that the para containing the table
should not be separated from the next para by page breaks?

Regards,
Makot

2016-04-13 2:29 GMT+09:00 Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>:

> 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
>
>
>
>

-- 

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/20160416/080333dd/attachment-0001.html>