Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 31 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upA collection of mostly editorial changes #709
Conversation
ndw
added some commits
Jan 16, 2019
ndw
requested review from
gimsieke
,
eriksiegel
and
xml-project
Jan 16, 2019
eriksiegel
approved these changes
Jan 16, 2019
gimsieke
approved these changes
Jan 16, 2019
xml-project
approved these changes
Jan 16, 2019
|
I am not so happy with some part of the terminology like "a step is sending its result" or "verbatim copy of document". I agree with the rules but worry a little bit whether the rule are to close to one possible implementation strategy. May be that is editorial work for the summer. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Suggestions welcome. I'll do a second read through after the first. |
ndw
merged commit 043aa00
into
xproc:master
Jan 17, 2019
1 check passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr
The Travis CI build passed
Details
ndw
deleted the
ndw:editorial
branch
Jan 17, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
ndw commentedJan 16, 2019
I'm about half-way through on my editorial pass. I believe that all of these changes are editorial in the sense that they don't change the technical content of the spec. But a few turned out to be bigger than just typos.
I've tried to avoid reflowing paragraphs and other things to keep the diffs clean(ish). There's also a formatted version here: http://xpspectest.nwalsh.com/editorial/head/xproc/
Diffs are still broken, alas :-(