Editions of 29500-1 (Strict) and 29500-4 (Transitional) beyond 2016

Fri Nov 24 17:57:14 CET 2017

Rex

Thanks for this clarification. There are no current Resolutions of SC 34 that would make it possible to initiate a CD ballot on revisions of Parts 1 and 4, so this will need to be agreed by SC 34, probably at the next Plenary. I’m not aware of there being any particular urgency for this. It can also be argued that there is little point in publishing CORs for Parts 1 and 4, if a revision is likely to be published within a year of publishing a COR.

Kind regards,

Francis

From: Rex Jaeschke [mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com] 
Sent: 24 November 2017 14:52
To: SC 34 WG4 <e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org>
Cc: TC45 <e-TC45 at ecma-international.org>
Subject: Editions of 29500-1 (Strict) and 29500-4 (Transitional) beyond 2016

Murata-san sent the following to me privately. I’m replying to the whole group, so hopefully we can avoid further confusion on this topic:

Murata-san: I thought that we are going to create DCORs for 29500-1/4, finish the DCOR ballots, and then go for a DIS ballot after incorporating editorial changes.  But I cannot find any records for our decisions for DCORs.  Am I missing something?

We’ve discussed this several times; here’s my understanding.

>From the minutes of the Barcelona, ES, meeting 2016-02

The Next Editions of 29500-1/-4 beyond 20017

We froze the content of the 2015 editions about a year ago. Since then, any DRs closed that modify Parts 1 or 4 have been labelled “Closed in COR4”. Newly closed DRs will be labelled likewise. (As they all refer to clause and page numbering from the 2012 edition, these references will all have to be changed to the 2016 edition, once that becomes available.)

We have never done a revision of Parts 1 and 4; we’ve simply produced one or more CORs and then rolled them into a consolidated reprint of the previous base standard to produce a new one. Going forward, we’ll probably want to go through the more formal revision process, at the very least so we can incorporate the fixes for those DRs that require lots of fiddly editing that are onerous to describe in a DR/COR. However, we can limit the revision to that and to the incorporation of DR resolutions, and we don’t have to start the formal revision process until we pretty much have a final WD.

We can discuss this further in future F2F meetings.

The Barcelona meeting was before the 2016 issue was completed. For previous editions, we’d produced 1 or 2 CORs, which were balloted in SC 34 only. Then I applied those CORs to the base standard to produce what used to be known as “a consolidated reprint”. As this needed *no* further balloting, it was published directly, and the whole process was editorial. 

ISO ITTF changed the process starting with the 2016 edition. Once I applied the CORs to the base standard, ITTF told us we had to do a combined JTC 1 ballot, which meant JTC 1, ISO, and ISO members all got a vote, instead of just SC 34 members. This delayed the process, but no changes resulted from those ballots. We were told by ITTF that we’d have to do this with future editions.

The consolidated reprint idea is no more. What we have now is always called a “revision”, a term we’ve long avoided using.

Going forward, our options are to produce zero or more CORs. When we are ready to produce a new edition, we’d apply those CORs (if any) to the base standards, as before, and the whole thing would go to a combined ballot. However, the new capability is that since the result is considered a revision, we can make changes to the spec *outside* of the COR process. We discussed this, and I created two new dispositions for DRs that resulted in change: COR4 (edits go into the next COR) and REV3 (edits go into the next revision, but not via a COR).

Candidates for REV3 are editorial changes, and certain (typically repetitive) technical changes for which we don’t want to write out every edit in the DR resolution. We first used this designation in Seoul.

>From the minutes of the Seoul, KR, meeting 2016-09

DR 15-0016 “DML: Remove drawingml namespace qualification from attributes in Part 1”

We agreed to close this, but rather than put it onto a COR, it can be put into the new edition along with editorial changes. Closed in REV3.

DR 15-0017 “DML: Remove redundant drawingml attributes from Part 4”

We agreed to close this, but rather than put it onto a COR, it can be put into the new edition along with editorial changes. Closed in REV3.

In Geneva, we assigned this designation to two more DRs we closed there.

>From the minutes of the Geneva, CH, meeting 2017-11

DR 16-0025 “Primer: Part 4 stuff”

We agreed with Rex’s proposed approach. Closed in REV3.

DR 17-0010 “VML: Attribute examples”

Murata-san presented his plan for resolving this issue. First, he’ll add the following subclauses, which because they are the end of their parent clauses, will not adversely affect section numbering.

Then he’ll move one copy of each attribute group to the corresponding new subclause, and he’ll delete all the duplicates without change tracking. He’ll add the necessary customized text to each affected element to point to its corresponding attribute group subclause.

Closed in REV3.

29500-1 and 29500-4 WDs

Soon, Rex will start work on 29500-1 WD1, which will incorporate the resolutions for all closed DRs impacting Part 1. He plans to track the changes. He expects to be able to deliver this by the 2018-03 F2F meeting.

Once Murata-san has implemented the resolution of DR 17-0010, he’ll hand back ownership of 29500-4 to Rex, who will then produce 29500-4 WD1, which will incorporate the resolutions for all closed DRs impacting Part 4. He plans to track the changes. He expects to be able to deliver this by the 2018-03 F2F meeting.

As I’ve reported several times, I’ve started work on WD1 for 29500-4, and my plan is to complete that prior to the Prague meeting. My private copy of that draft contains the DRs closed as COR4, (and will contain any designated REV3) and *also* numerous editorial changes to correct/improve the English, none of which came from a DR. I plan to do the same for a WG1 for 29500-1.

Eventually, we’ll have a final WD that will be balloted and will become a new edition. As to whether we publish any CORs along the way has not yet been decided, not does it need to be any time soon. If we decide to publish a COR for Part 1 and/or 4, we can do so at any time, but that takes time and effort, and doesn’t help us in WG4, as we’ll already have our own internal consolidated reprint via the WD. 

So here are the steps leading to the next revision of 29500-1/-4:

1.	If we think it necessary, we can produce one or more CORs, and ballot them in SC 34. (If we chose to *not* publish a CD, then all DRs marked COR4 will be treated as though they were marked REV3.)
2.	Eventually, we get permission from SC 34 to revise.
3.	I produce a CD for each Part, that is the 2016 standard + any COR4 fixes + any REV3 fixes
4.	We have the (hopefully) Final CD ballot and then the combined (F)DIS ballot.

Recently, Murata-san questioned our having WDs without having asked for permission to do a revision. As a WG, we can have whatever WDs we want internally. It’s only when we want to have a CD that we need to have a revision project, and we don’t need a CD until we decide to start the clock ticking on the next edition, which will be called a revision.

I hope this clarifies things,

Rex

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20171124/478e055f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 28352 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20171124/478e055f/attachment-0001.jpg>