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

[MURATA Makoto]

Rex,


2017年11月25日(土) 9:06 Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>:

> The exemption from a few of the Directives-Part-2 rules resulted from a
> request from me to IITF. (That request is attached.) ITTF granted that
> request.
>
>
I have not been aware of your request and the reply from ITTF.  Where
is the reply from ITTF?

During the DIS ballot for 29500-3, Japan requested conformance to
Directives part 2.  Most of the comments were accepted.

http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/2014-September/003316.html

Regards,
Makoto

>
>
> Separately, ITTF agreed to accept PDF-only from us, and Kimura-san is
> aware of that; I only send her PDF submissions for forwarding to ITTF.
>
>
>
> Rex
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *MURATA
> Makoto
> *Sent:* Friday, November 24, 2017 5:54 PM
>
>
> *To:* SC 34 WG4 <e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org>
> *Cc:* TC45 <e-TC45 at ecma-international.org>
>
> *Subject:* SPAM-LOW: Re: Editions of 29500-1 (Strict) and 29500-4
> (Transitional) beyond 2016
>
>
>
> Rex,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
>
>
> I thought that we have been exempted from conformance
>
> to Directives, part 2 only because we have had DCOR
>
> ballots and consolidation.  I will speak with Kimura-san
>
> about this.
>
>
>
> We can start a letter ballot if any SC34 decisions are
>
> needed.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Makoto
>
>
>
> 2017-11-25 1:57 GMT+09:00 Francis Cave <francis at franciscave.com>:
>
> 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.
>
> [image: cid:image002.jpg at 01D36509.CBEACC70]
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> 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/20171125/8294fbff/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/20171125/8294fbff/attachment-0001.jpg>