From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Wed May 12 17:17:22 2004 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) id i4CFHMnD056846 for sc22wg5-domo; Wed, 12 May 2004 17:17:22 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i4CFFWE7056826 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 17:17:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from rich_maine@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov) Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Wed, 12 May 2004 08:10:25 -0700 Received: from [130.134.31.78] (viruswall.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.64.54]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71686U2500L200S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 08:15:58 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 08:15:54 -0700 From: Richard Maine To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (j3.2004) (SC22WG5.3116) Do we want to worry about this? Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200405110207.i4B27q35031362@dkuug.dk> References: <200405110207.i4B27q35031362@dkuug.dk> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.3 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk --On Monday, May 10, 2004 7:08 PM -0700 Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: > Table 15.2 on pages 396-7 in N1601 == 04-007 is 24.14113pt too wide. > > The only reason for this is the note at the end, which could be narrowed > either by removing "mentioned" or replacing "clauses" by "in" or both. > > Do we want to worry about this? No. 1. I'm not sure how you concluded that the note is at fault. It doesn't look like the longest thing in the table. I'll believe you are correct (theorizing that you likely changed a copy to test), but I'm not sure how you deduced it. Not that this much matters. 2. I see no obvious visual artifacts resulting from this. I certainly don't see any 1/3 inch overrun. So I don't see what problem we would be fixing. The only "problem" I see is nagging messages in the LaTeX log file. 3. This doesn't come within orders of magnitude of being worth redoing the DIS for. The DIS is done - finished - forget it. There is *NO* level of typographical oddity that I'd think worth redoing it for. As John mentioned, typo problems are things that can be fixed after the DIS... that is if they are worth fixing at all. But I just don't see anything to fix here. I'm not planning on even adding it to my list of post-DIS fixes (which list is currently empty). P.S. This has been in the draft for... I forget... but a long time. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; Richard.Maine@nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. | -- Mark Twain