DR-16-0010, "WML: Confusing example used repeatedly in Descriptions of attribute w:val" PLEASE PROOF the proposal

[Rex Jaeschke]

Francis and I have been working on a resolution for this, and are happy that
we have done 98% of it. We'd like to get some members to review this, so we
can close it in Seoul. The missing 2% is discussed at the bottom of this
message.

Here's what I did to produce this proposal:

1. As there is no value to having the same, or extracts of the main, example
in the attribute row, so I removed all examples from the attribute rows.

2. Each of the attribute Descriptions starts out by saying the same thing,
"Specifies that its contents contain a string." As the corresponding
Attribute column says "val (String Value)", it seems that this first row is
also redundant. As such, I removed it from each table.

3. For proofing purposes, I've left in all the intro text for each
subclause, but once we've confirmed the revised/added Description sentence
in each table is correct, I can remove all the intro text that has no
changes, replacing it with "...", as I usually do in DRs with lengthy quotes
from the std.

4. I used the new 2016 DIS version of Part 1 rather than 2012, so I'd not be
overwriting any changes we might have made in these clauses in the two CORs
since 2012.

5. I searched the 2016 DIS version for a representative sample of the
erroneous example text Francis identified, and I came up with exactly the
same set of clauses that he did, so I think we have identified and addressed
all of them.



The following two subclauses have comments associated with them, that we
need help to resolve.

§17.15.2.39 sz

Francis> I think that the text of the val attribute description is basically
OK, but the clause as a whole would benefit from a clearer example above the
attribute table. The interpretation of 'sz' depends upon the element
frameLayout in the same parent frameset element, but the example doesn't
show frameLayout, which must contain val="rows" for the example to make
sense.

Rex> I've marked that in a comment attached to that subclause. We can asked
reviewers for help.

§17.15.2.40 sz

Same issue as above.

Regards, Rex

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DR-16-0010.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 174968 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20160822/0713841c/attachment-0001.docx>