Errata on 15.4.7

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Dennis,

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

Here is the text in question (15.4.7, page 555 of ODF 1.0):

> Use the style:text-line-through-style property to specify if and how 
> text is lined
> through. This property is similar to the [CSS3Text] text-line-style 
> property, except that it
> has the additional value long-dash and that it does not have the value 
> double. Instead of this,
> the attribute style:text:line-through-type can be used to turn each 
> line style into a
> double line. See §9.2 of [CSS3Text] for details. See also section 15.4.29.
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:

1) Make the material into a note, hence a non-normative reference:

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

Note: This property is similar to the [CSS3Text] text-line-style 
property, except that it
has the additional value long-dash and that it does not have the value 
double. Instead of this,
the attribute style:text:line-through-type can be used to turn each line 
style into a
double line. See §9.2 of [CSS3Text] for details. See also section 15.4.29.

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

3) Create notes at the other sections where this appears: 15.4.8, 
15.4.29, 15.4.30, 15.4.33, 15.4.34.

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)