Michael,
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/18/08 02:29, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> Hi Patrick,
>>
>> I am reviewing the new errata draft in stages:
>>
> Thank you very much for this effort.
>
Ditto!
>> SECTION AND LINE NUMBER DISCREPANCIES IN ERRATA DRAFT 3
>>
>> ODF 1.0 IS 26300
>> Section page line page line
>>
>> 9.3.11 311 24 315 15 [new insertion]
>> The effect of the instruction is to change
>> "a URI" to "an URI" in ODF 1.0 and "a IRI"
>> to "an IRI" in IS 26300. Unfortunately,
>> "URI" is a plural term in accordance with
>> [RFC2396] and, if used in singular, it would
>> be "a URI" just as it is "a URL." That's
>> because it is either you-are-eye or Universal
>> Resource Mumble, and either way we have the 'except when
>> pronounced as "Y"' exception to U
>> being a vowel, even though in speech we might say
>> "an earl."
>
> Since I am not a native English speaker, I have really no opinion here.
Well, not that I thought about it at the time but it really should be URL.
In context:
> In addition to the shape attributes, each image map element can
> contain the following
> information:
> • Link, including a URI and link target frame.
So, starting from your point that URI is plural, that is clearly wrong
and should be URL.
Noting that IRI is singular according to RDF 3987.
So, the correction should read:
'Change "a URI" to "a URL" in ODF 1.0 and change "a IRI" to "an IRI" in
ISO 26300.'
>
>>
>> 15.4.7 *555**41* 565 *9* [proposed correction] 556
>> 8 565 12 [line in errata 3]
>> Problem: 556-8 is in section 15.4.8, not 15.4.7.
>> In the proposed correction, the line numbers are
>> those on which the text to be deleted begins.
>
> Dennis is correct here. However, I don't feel comfortable with the
> amount of text that is removed here. I would feel more comfortable if we
> just remove the reference(s).
>
> Actually the section references CSS3 two times. In the previous errata
> we said "Delete normative reference to working draft of CSS3." Which
> of the two is the normative reference? The 2nd one? If so, wouldn't it
> be sufficient to just remove the second reference, that is, the "See
> §9.2 of [CSS3Text] for details.".
>
Actually not. Dennis is confusing two separate entries (there are six in
all). See below.
OK, first, the errata report is vague:
> 1.
> An obsolete working draft of CSS3 text is
> referenced in a normative manner.
>
>
>
Second, there are 6 actual occurrences of:
"See § section# of [CSS3Text] for details."
Those are in 15.4.7, 15.4.8 (the two we have been discussing), plus
15.4.29, 15.4.30, 15.4.33, and 15.4.34.
If we follow Michael's suggestion of simply striking the "See § section#
of [CSS3Text] for details." in all six locations, that would answer any
possible interpretation of this errata.
I have included all six in the latest revision.
>>
>> 15.27.31 655 12 *667* 10 [missed correction. It is
>> made on the next
>> 15.27.31 item]
>
> Page 667 seems to be correct.
OK.
>
>>
>> 15.28.4 656 *32* 668 31
>> [656 has one more line at the top than 668]
>
> I did not check the line number, but I just noticed (indeed very late)
> that the resolution seems not to be correct. Actually 15.28.4 should
> in fact have been a new section on the 2nd level with 15.28.5 and
> 15.28.6 as subsection. But renumbering 15.28.4 to 15.29 changes the
> numbering of subsequent sections, too. I therefore suggest we replace
> "this section" with "15.28.5 and 15.28.6".
>
No, I was using an application that skipped the blank line in the schema
fragment. So yes, line 32 on page 656.
Any comments/suggestions on the proposed solution? (Glad you caught that
as it was non-obvious.)
>>
>> *15.31.3* 663 21 675 37 [typos "15.13.3" but
>> *15.31.3* 663 34 676 5 in correct place]
>> [I can't believe the number of times I looked
>> at this page and didn't see that.]
>
> 15.31.3 seems to be correct.
Yep. transposed numbers are hard to catch.
Agreed.
>>
>> 17.5 686 18 699 17
>> I just noticed that the new text has the phrase
>> "a schema (like http:)". The
>> correct term is "scheme" or even "URL
>> scheme" in accordance with [RFC2396] and
>> the scheme name does not include the ":",
>> so "a URL scheme (as in http:)" might
>> be more precise. (And it is "a URL" not
>> "an URL", also in accord with [RFC2396].)
>
> "Schema" in fact must read "scheme". That may be grammatically wrong,
> but it is the terminology used in the RFC.
OK.
>> 17.6 686 38 699 36 [deleted by mistake?]
>> The correction instruction is: Replace
>> "thumbnails" with "Thumbnails".
>> [This is needed to complete the corrections
>> given for the preceding line of 17.6. This
>> could also be incorporated in that change.]
>
> Yes, this seems to be missing now.
Agreed.
Hope you are having a great day!
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)