[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] (OFFICE-4088) "implementation-defined" vs. "implementation defined"
[ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OFFICE-4088?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=78189#comment-78189 ] Patrick Durusau commented on OFFICE-4088: ----------------------------------------- Regina, if you can check, I think the issue for implementation defined to implementation-defined has been fixed in parts 2 and 4. I have entered a proposal for 4.17 in part 2. Thanks!-- > "implementation-defined" vs. "implementation defined" > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Key: OFFICE-4088 > URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OFFICE-4088 > Project: OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Regina Henschel > Priority: Major > Fix For: ODF 1.4 > > > Section 1.2 Terminology in Part 2, ODF 1.3, defines the term "implementation-defined". But I find it as "implementation defined" (without dash) in > 4.16.11Â manifest:preferred-view-mode, part 2 > 4.17 manifest:PGPAlgorithm, part 2 > 3.4 Host-Defined Behaviors, part 4 > In addition, 4.17 has wrong character style in that sentence. > Having both, makes a search for "implementation-defined" terms unnecessary difficult. So in case not the defined term "implementation-defined" is intended, the wording should be changed to avoid "implementation defined". > I think, that it should be with dash in 4.17 and consider that as editorial error. > I'm not sure about the other cases. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.3#803004)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]