RE: [office] Errata on 15.4.7

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

Patrick,

I'm reviewing my list to make specific proposals where they are lacking.

For this one, I propose that the one erratum on 15.4.7 be made into two, one
for 15.4.7 and the other for 15.4.8.  My rationale is that (1) we have
already done the work to figure out what's needed, (2) they are both subject
to the original comment, and (3) the current erratum actually refers to both
sections, giving the 15.4.7 section number but referring to the page and
line of 15.4.8. I agree that the other sections you identify should be added
to our own errata records for 1.2 fixes and, if warranted, any next errata
for ODF 1.0.  

We may need Mary's advice on whether splitting the original erratum into two
corrected ones is appropriate.  I would hope that this is within our
discretion.

Here are your changes incorporated in this revised proposal.  

          ODF 1.0     IS 26300
Section   page line   page line

15.4.7    555  40     565  8       
          ***  ***         ***     [*** corrected page-location values]

Strike out the entire instruction in the previous committee errata and
introduce the following new instruction:

Replace the entire paragraph (4 lines) with the following: "Use the
style:text-line-through-style property to specify if and how text is lined
through."

Now, to completely sort out the original erratum, add the following entry:

          ODF 1.0     IS 26300
Section   page line   page line

15.4.8    556  5      565  21      [This inserts a new correction that has
the 15.4.8 lines]

The new instruction:

Replace the entire paragraph (5 lines) with the following: "Use the
style:text-line-through-width property to specify the width of a
line-through line."


 - Dennis

PS: I agree that 15.4.29, 15.4.30, 15.4.33, 15.4.34 need attention, and that
the conditions on when there is and is not a line-through may also need some
clarity.
PPS: I also agree that the cross references to 15.4.29-.30 from 15.4.7-.8
are not necessary.
PPPS: I also think that these wordings should translate well, since the
translation of the original sentence is already done, presumably.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00018.html
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 11:32
To: ODF office
Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton
Subject: [office] Errata on 15.4.7

Dennis,

I think your objection to my errata instruction is well founded.

[ ... ]

Now I would propose that the editing instruction say that is replaced by:

Use the style:text-line-through-style property to specify if and how 
text is lined
through.

*But* before anyone agrees, note that as Dennis pointed out, very 
similar language appears in 15.4.8, on page 556.

And that language was not reported in an errata request.

As a matter of fact, that citation appears as follows: 15.4.7, 15.4.8, 
15.4.29, 15.4.30, 15.4.33, 15.4.34, with similar language in each place.

The original objection:

> An obsolete working draft of CSS3 text is referenced in a normative 
> manner.
>
The ways to answer/cure this defect:

[ ... ]

2) Delete the material in question (my current proposal) but only at 
15.4.7, the only section mentioned in the errata.

[ ... ]

4) Delete the material in question wherever else it appears: 15.4.8, 
15.4.29, 15.4.30, 15.4.33, 15.4.34.

My suggestion is that we take #2 for the errata.

However, we should remember this comment for ODF 1.2 and make any 
non-normative references in notes only.

Hope everyone is at the start of a great week!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)