| Number | 162
|
| Category | errata
|
| Synopsis | Blame it on IEEE!
|
| State | closed
|
| Class | mistaken
|
| Arrival-Date | Oct 14 2002
|
| Originator | "Jayaram Bhasker" <JBhasker@eSilicon.com>
|
| Release | 2001b
|
| Environment |
|
| Description |
I see the IEEE getting hammered so much by this group that we should try to figure out a way that this does not happen second time around. Maybe it is a DASC issue - thats why I have cc'ed this email to Paul Menchini as well. This is very odd that IEEE editors changed the document so much. I have taken two standards through the IEEE process and I can tell you that the draft was published as the WG had submitted in both my cases - there was NOT A SINGLE CHANGE done to the body by the IEEE editors. What went wrong with 1364-2001? Has the IEEE editing policy changed? Did anyone review the changes made by the IEEE editors? Was there a good working relationship between 1364-2001 WG editor and the IEEE editors? - bhasker -----Original Message----- From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com [mailto:Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 1:26 PM To: etf-bugs@boyd.com Subject: errata/159: footnote numbering in syntax boxes Precedence: bulk >Number: 159 >Category: errata >Originator: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com >Environment: >Description: In Draft 6, we had numbered footnotes in syntax boxes, just as we did in Annex A. The IEEE, in both 1ed and 2ed, changed those numbers to special symbols, such as asterisk, dagger, etc. This is awkward where there are many footnotes, and makes it harder to refer to a specific footnote. Furthermore, some of those special symbols did not come out in the IEEE PDF and printed editions. In Annex A, they were still numbered. Oddly, what IEEE did does not seem to match their conventions. According to the IEEE Standards Style Manual, body and annex footnotes should be numbered, whereas table and figure footnotes should be lettered. Presumably, syntax boxes are closer to tables and figures. In any cases, either letters or numbersm but not special symbols. In 3ed, we should make sure they are either numbers or letters. Shalom |
| Fix |
|
| Audit-Trail |
From: Michael McNamara <mac@verisity.com> To: "Jayaram Bhasker" <JBhasker@esilicon.com> Cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com Subject: RE: errata/162: Blame it on IEEE! Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:14:39 -0700 >Category: errata >Confidential: no >Originator: Michael McNamara <mac@verisity.com> >Release: 2001b >Class: TBD >Description: Jayaram Bhasker writes: > Precedence: bulk > > > >Number: 162 > >Category: errata > >Originator: "Jayaram Bhasker" <JBhasker@eSilicon.com> > >Environment: > >Description: > > I see the IEEE getting hammered so much by this group > that we should try to figure out a > way that this does not happen second time around. Maybe it is a DASC issue - > thats why I have cc'ed this email to Paul Menchini as well. > > This is very odd that IEEE editors changed the document so much. I have taken > two standards through the IEEE process and I can tell you that the draft was > published as the WG had submitted in both my cases - there was NOT A SINGLE > CHANGE done to the body by the IEEE editors. > > What went wrong with 1364-2001? Has the IEEE editing policy changed? > Did anyone review the changes made by the IEEE editors? We did review the standard after the IEEE edits, and made numerous corrections, which the IEEE implemented, and sent us a PDF with our corrections for us to review. We ok'ed that version. Unfortunately the IEEE went ahead and published the first version. > Was there a good working relationship between 1364-2001 WG editor and > the IEEE editors? > > - bhasker > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com > [mailto:Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 1:26 PM > To: etf-bugs@boyd.com > Subject: errata/159: footnote numbering in syntax boxes > > > Precedence: bulk > > > >Number: 159 > >Category: errata > >Originator: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com > >Environment: > >Description: > > In Draft 6, we had numbered footnotes in syntax boxes, just as we did in Annex > A. > > The IEEE, in both 1ed and 2ed, changed those numbers to special symbols, such as > asterisk, dagger, etc. > > This is awkward where there are many footnotes, and makes it harder to refer to > a specific footnote. Furthermore, some of those special symbols did not come out > in the IEEE PDF and printed editions. In Annex A, they were still numbered. > > Oddly, what IEEE did does not seem to match their conventions. > > According to the IEEE Standards Style Manual, body and annex footnotes should be > numbered, whereas table and figure footnotes should be lettered. Presumably, > syntax boxes are closer to tables and figures. In any cases, either letters or > numbersm but not special symbols. > > In 3ed, we should make sure they are either numbers or letters. > > Shalom |
| Unformatted |
|
Hosted by Boyd Technology