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

Sat Apr 16 13:12:32 CEST 2016

I reported discrepancies between figures in the PDF version of the
consolidated Part 1 and those in the Word version.  Most of them are
not real, but are caused by a non-acrobat PDF reader and my XSLT
script that extracts figures and tables.

However, two of them are real.  The figures in 17.4.22 17.4.24 of the
PDF version and those in the word version do look different.  I guess
that this difference is caused by a bug of MS Word.  We can address
this issue by creating small images for the example tables, but
I am wondering if we can do so as part of this consolidation.

Regards,
Makoto

2016-04-13 2:24 GMT+09:00 Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>:

> I also don’t see any differences between the two versions, and agree with
> Caroline that the second one runs off the right margin. I'm running MS Word
> 2103 and Adobe Acrobat X 10.1.16.13.
>
> Rex
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: caroline arms [mailto:caroline.arms at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 7:15 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.
>
> FWIW, for me, the diagrams in 17.4.10 and 17.4.11 look the same in both
> versions of the Part 1 draft.  But the 17.4.11 diagram runs over the right
> margin in both.
>
> I'm on a Mac, running Word for Mac 2011 and Adobe Reader 9.5.5
>
> I'll check the other problems you found.
>
>     Caroline
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:50 PM, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>
> wrote:
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20160416/6ab2c8c1/attachment.html>