I am available...
Arpad
==============
From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Ross
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 11:11 AM
To: mlabonte@xxxxxxxxxx; ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: IBIS Version 7.0 Draft 1 Review
All,
I think we should meet on Friday.
Bob
From:
ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike LaBonte
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 7:52 AM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: IBIS Version 7.0 Draft 1 Review
I would be in favor of making most or all of Randy's suggested changes. Some
are outright errors that I didn't catch, and some are common editorial
cleanups. Commenting on a few things though:
1. Like me, Randy is troubled by the unnecessary use of full-word
capitalization for emphasis. I had started to flag those, but gave up because
there are SO MANY. Hopefully Randy found them all, but even if we don't find
them all, it makes the document better and is worthwhile to fix the ones he
found. If we feel that emphasis is warranted, changing them to lowercase
italics would suffice. This is an artifact of IBIS's plain text roots.
2. The suggested changes for more consistent capitalization of concept terms
like Interconnect Model might be more iffy. We do not have a documented policy
to help do this consistently, Randy changed one "interconnect model" to
"Interconnect Model" on page 8. There are over 400 instances of title case, but
6 more lowercase instances remain. We could change those and at least be
consistent about Interconnect Model, if there is little chance that we will
later decide to drop rampant capitalization of concept terms. I lean toward
making the change though.
3. The linespace added at the top of 296 is between two regular paragraphs,
so we need to instead use 4pt space after there.
4. The images on 306 and 307 that Randy suggest expanding are at 100%
already. I think I produced them, and I would have to go back and regenerate at
a larger size to avoid blurring.
5. About figures 49 and 50, the captions explain them fairly well, which
might be why we didn't introduce them in the text. However, it is not 100%
obvious that they are associated with previous example syntax, so lines like
"Figure 49 graphically shows the connectivity established by this example."
might be good.
6. In Example 10 on page 321 I think the word "and" can be deleted to fix
the problem.
Should we have an Editorial Task Group meeting Friday?
Mike
On 12/26/2018 6:13 PM, Randy Wolff (Redacted sender rrwolff for DMARC) wrote:
Sorry to be so late to the game with editorial review of Version 7.0. I
finally found time during the last several days of holiday travel to do a read
through of most of the draft, including older sections of the document. I
tracked changes, so the easiest way to see these is to view only the markup
from "Author". I made some small edits, while most others are shown as
comments (without actual changes). Some of the changes may be easily
acceptable, while a few comments likely need a bit more discussion.
I can attend an Editorial task group meeting after the holidays to go through
the potential edits as a group. Mike posted my edited version at:
.docx<https://ibis.org/editorial_wip/ver7_0_draft1_rrw.docx> (Thanks Mike!).
Happy New Year all.
Randy
