Hi Svante Iâm proposing that I (or Patrick, but best not to check our own work) check the styling of all tracked changes before we accept any of them to create a Committee Specification Draft, but I suggest that we do this after all the tracked changes for ODF 1.4 have been made, as we can resolve the other editorial issues that have been logged in GitHub at the same time. But youâre right about the styling of default value paragraphs: the paragraph style should be âDefault Valueâ, and the text style for the actual value (â0â in this instance) should be âAttribute Valueâ. Kind regards, Francis From: office@lists.oasis-open.org <office@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Svante Schubert
Sent: 09 May 2022 20:37
To: Francis Cave <francis@franciscave.com>; Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
Cc: ODF TC List <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02 > b) Default Value style should be used for 0 in "The default value for this attribute is 0." Sorry, I made a mistake here: The "Default Value" style is a paragraph style and has to be used for the paragraph containing the default value, not for the value itself (for instance in LibreOffice you may search for the "Default Value" paragraph style). Hi Francis, Hi Patrick,
I have finished my batch.
There were three steps I took for review in general as my "fix-review-pattern":
A) Is the schema correctly changed (optional)
B) Is the text of the resolution within the draft of the specification.
C) Is the Issue mentioned in the Appendix.
In addition to Schema Review A), I compared once the overall draft RNG with the one from ODF 1.3, if
- the issue# exists for all changes
- the issue# is written ahead of the changes
Starting with the latter full review of schema
A) Schema Review - Full RNG Comparison
===================================
General remarks on the RNG changes, I did a comparison between the WD and ODF 1.3 release.
I guess Michael & Regina have already mentioned some before, just for completeness:
1) Issue after change in Line 2788 Office-3759
2) Without issue no line 4907:
<rng:attribute name="draw:extrusion-specularity">
<rng:ref name="percent"/>
</rng:attribute>
3) Without issue no line 12226:
<rng:optional>
<rng:attribute name="style:margin-gutter">
<rng:ref name="nonNegativeLength"/>
</rng:attribute>
</rng:optional>
4) Last line too much:
<!-- Office-4108 -->
<rng:zeroOrMore>
<rng:ref name="number-num-list-format"/>
</rng:zeroOrMore>
<rng:zeroOrMore>
OFFICE-4105
=========== A) Review of Schema Change Comment of issue numbers is missing in schema change (line# 12226). (BTW this issue was not listed in issue review spreadsheet as schema change!)
B) Review of Specification Changes:
in 19.511 style:page-usage a) Attribute Value character style should be used for the attribute values - at the beginning of the list
- in the later paragraphs and tables
b) Formatting of Chapter# 19.511 after the list seems odd.
in 20.322 style:margin-gutter
a) Wrong formatting in the beginning.
b) Default Value style should be used for 0 in "The default value for this attribute is 0." C) Review of Appendix Entry
Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix!
OFFICE-4073
=========== A) Review of Schema Changes Schema change looks fine!
B) Review of Specification Changes
a) Page-content-bottom: vertical position ...
^^The value starts with a minor "p" not "P".
b) Above value should have the attribute-value character style!
c) The new value should be listed as well in the last box starting with:
"The values of the style:vertical-rel attribute are"
(was not part of the proposal but needs to be added!)
C) Review of Appendix Entry
Issue correctly mentioned in Appendix!
OFFICE-4033
=========== A) Review of Schema Changes No Schema change was necessary!
B) Review of Specification Changes:
Changes in the spec are according to our resolution: Hi Regina
Thank you for your quick work! Although it isn't specifically on the agenda for tomorrow's TC call, I think I'll await the outcome of any comments about the review process in tomorrow's call, before allocating any more of the batches.
Kind regards,
Francis
-----Original Message-----
From: office@lists.oasis-open.org <office@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Regina Henschel
Sent: 08 May 2022 18:30
To: Francis Cave <francis@franciscave.com>
Cc: 'ODF TC List' <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.4 Part 3 WD02
Hi Francis,
Francis Cave schrieb am 06.05.2022 um 19:24:
> Hi Regina
>
> If/when you have time, please review batch 9 on the attached revised spreadsheet.
>
> Many thanks!
>
OASIS-4119
===========
Issue resolution field: OK
Changes in text: OK
Appendix G: Item 19.882.12 <text:index-entry-link-end> is missing.
Schema is not affected.
OASIS-4102
==========
all OK
OASIS-3751
==========
Issue resolution field: Should have a text like "Change in schema as proposed".
Changes in text: OK
Appendix G: OK
Schema: OK
OASIS-3816
==========
Issue resolution field is empty.
Changes in text: OK
Appendix G: OK
Schema is not affected.
Kind regards,
Regina
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
|