(j3.2006) Work plan

Malcolm Cohen malcolm
Wed Feb 5 21:00:43 EST 2014

Replying in haste...

>> No, as editor I "failed" one of the m202 papers as it needed extra work and 
>> in
>> particular one more edit I did not have the time/energy to make up on the 
>> fly.
>> This needs to be redone.
>Which paper is this?

See the editor's report pls.

>  Should I remove it from the Edits column of
>14-010r1, or at least remove the "E" from the SXE column?

At least remove the "E".

Inserting a reference to the editor's report which has discussion of it might be 
appropriate but I guess there is no room in the table for that.

>> There are also two UTIs arising from applying the corrigenda.  These need 
>> papers
>> addressing them.  I did sketch out how I thought these should probably be 
>> fixed.
>Should we have an "apply the corrigenda" work item in 14-010r1?

If it makes us feel better.  Since it has been done bar (though with 2 UTIs) 
there is nothing to keep track of.

>  The
>most likely paper to list under under the Specs, syntaX and Edits
>columns is N2005.

I worked off of N2002.

>  It might be helpful to have the item there, without
>"E" in the SXE column until the UTI's are addressed.

Disagree strongly since the edits HAVE, in fact, already been done.

UTIs keep track of themselves...

>In general, we could have numerous papers for each part of a work item.
>It would probably make sense to list the latest one, and try to be
>careful to list earlier ones in the "References" header in each paper.

Don't much care for that.  The "References" header should not contain any vital 

................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo. 

More information about the J3 mailing list