RE: [Fwd: errata/310: PROPOSAL - wrong or poor xrefs]

From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
Date: Sun Apr 27 2003 - 02:55:13 PDT

  • Next message: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com: "errata/335: 23.24: "acc_fetch_paramtype" should be "acc_fetch_paramval" x 2"

    Precedence: bulk

    The following is my personal opinion and not the official position of IEEE 1364.

    > According to Andy, the IEEE wishes to publish a IEEE 1364-2001, based
    > on what we are calling 1364-2001b, but with the table of contents
    > restored, and with an index, but no other material changes.
    >
    > Shalom, I volunteered you to work with Andy on restoring the index;
    > it may be as simple as grafting back into the Frame for 1364-2001b
    > the index tags and such from Draft 6.

    Table of Contents: According to the IEEE Standards Style Guide, while the
    default form of a TOC is with 1 level of sub-clauses, long and complex standards
    may have 2 levels of sub-clauses in the TOC. 1364-2001 certainly fulfills the
    "long and complex" criterion, so we want the more detailed version of the TOC.
    This particular point IS an official position of the 1364 WG. By the way, even
    with only 1 level, 26.6 is incorrectly missing from the 2001b TOC. That needs to
    be fixed.

    Index: The index tags already exist in 2001b. What needs to be done is
    re-generate the index and reformat according to IEEE standards. In particular,
    the page references need to change to subclause references.

    Font problems and PDF generation: We found that when the PDF was generated by
    IEEE for 2001a, some of the characters did not come out at all or did not come
    out well. This was due to use of TimesNewRoman and CourierNew fonts. Although
    the situation is better in 2001b, there are still some problems. We found that
    when we generate the PDF ourselves, these problems seem to be solved. Therefore,
    we request to generate the PDF ourselves and submit it to IEEE for approval.
    That also solves some other problems as well. It seems to be allowed by IEEE
    rules.

    "No other material changes": Does this mean that non-material changes can be
    considered? There are a number of corrections which I think are mandatory.
    Leaving them uncorrected reflects badly on the professional image of IEEE in
    general and of the IEEE 1364 WG in particular. I think IEEE should itself insist
    on these corrections before publication.

    (Note: I am not seeking to blame anyone. I just want to put out the best product
    I can in the shortest possible time. I don't want to be ashamed that my name
    appears in the book.)

    These can be classified in several categories:

    - Formatting problems introduced in the transition from Draft 6 to 2001a, but
    not yet fixed. The "disappearing character" problem, above, is an example.

    - Changes made from Draft 6 to 2001a in violation of IEEE's own style
    guidelines.

    - Errors introduced in the 2001b version when mistakes were made in
    executing corrections to 2001a.

    - Changes/corrections that were supposed to be made by 1364 on the balloted
    version, but were forgotten or not done correctly.

    - Non-controversial, but essential corrections (e.g, what appears is just plain
    wrong, and was never intended to be there)

    - "No-brainers". E.g., incorrect cross-references.

    My concrete suggestion is that the 1364 WG submit a list of such corrections we
    wish made before publication.

    Sincerely,
    Shalom Bresticker 

    -- 
Shalom Bresticker                           Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
Design & Reuse Methodology                             Tel: +972 9 9522268
Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd.                    Fax: +972 9 9522890
POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL                       Cell: +972 50 441478

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 27 2003 - 02:56:06 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.