Problems with 1.6 change marking found when comparing 1.5 to 1.6, part 1
Description
Attachments
causes
Activity
I'm not going to dredge through all comments for schema relevance. Notably because I assume that any schema relevant change has an issue of its own. Please add a new schema issue in case we missed something.
@Graham Mann if schema done please mark and assign to me
Looks good
(This one has gone through a lot of back and forth between TSC Verify and Specification, but I hope we are now done with that! )
PlateUV was marked as "New in JDF 1.6" rather than "Deprecated in JDF 1.6"
Back to Specification due to:
FoldingParams/@SheetLay is still marked as "Modified in JDF 1.7", even though you said above you changed it to "Modified in JDF 1.6".
CuttingParams/@SheetLay and FoldingParams/@SheetLay were both modified in JDF 1.6, and therefore should not be listed in the 1.7 spec's Appendix N Release Notes, which should only list changes in 1.7.
For MediaDirection, yes, you've added this to JDF-552, and I'm fine with that, but you need to keep track of the fact that the one entry you added to https://cip4.atlassian.net/browse/JDF-552#icft=JDF-552 for MediaDirection needs to be 7 separate rows in Appendix N in the Errata, since there were 7 different places that the marking "Modified in JDF 1.6" was forgotten.
In addition for MediaDirection, the question of adding a "Modification Note" in the 7 places that use MediaDirection and that you added "Modified in JDF 1.6" is a separate question, I believe. I think that those "Modification Note"s should be added in the 1.7 spec, saying something like "Modification Note: In JDF 1.6, the list of possible values was changed."
PlateUV in MediaType Details had a good fix made ("replace" to "replaced"), but it does not have "Deprecated in JDF 1.6" on it as it should. (In addition, I edited https://cip4.atlassian.net/browse/JDF-552#icft=JDF-552 to make sure that it is PlateUV that needs to be mentioned in the Appendix N entry in the Errata.)
Details
Details
Assignee
Reporter
Components
Fix versions
Priority
Normal
I have done a comparison of 1.5 to 1.6 and marked cases where changes happened and they were not sufficiently marked as changes. I think some of the changes were probably accidental, so should be undone rather than marked.
I am posting an FDF (and the corresponding PDF, although the PDF is actually just the "Final" 1.6 spec).
I am also going to open another JIRA issue having to do with "issues" found during the comparison. I think the distinction between finding an "issue" and finding a bad 1.5->1.6 marking is sometimes a fine one, so forgive me if the two different JIRA issues are not cleanly distinguished.
I have not fully completed my comparison of 1.5 and 1.6 (I am probably about 70% done), but decided it was taking too long so I should post what I have so far.