[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Errata ballot or new revision?
The error was in both the ODF and PDF of the Approved Errata 01. The defect is in the correction for section 9.3 page 295 that reads 'The term "scale" should be replaced with "scale".' In OpenDocument-v1.0-errata-01-os.odt (and the .pdf) the correction statement is in a single font style throughout. The second occurrence of 'scale' should have been in monospace. - Dennis MORE THOUGHTS There is also a problem with the wording that should be corrected in Errata 02/COR2. It is very strange to say that 'The value *scale-min* equals the value *scale*, except ..'. where the *-d terms are in monospace. The use of equals is inappropriate here. To clear up the awkward wording and a defect later in the same sentence, it seems more appropriate to replace the entire paragraph with: "The value *scale-min* specifies that the respective calculated width or height is a minimum value rather than an absolute one." [I confess that that still doesn't make sense unless we are referring to the value given in *svg:width* or *svg:height*, and I don't know how preservation of the proportion of height to width figures in. I wonder what ODF 1.2 says and whether we can back-fill something precise?] -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 07:42 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: 'ODF TC List'; 'Patrick Durusau'; Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM Subject: RE: [office] Errata ballot or new revision? [ ... ] > Was the error in the ODF version of Approved Errata 01 or only in the PDF version? If the error was only in the PDF version, then Patrick should be able to silently correct that in the final published COR1. If the error was in the ODF version then we live with it in Errata 01/COR1 and fix it in Errata 02/COR2. -Rob