The errata list is a list of errors and their corrections that were found after the product was released.
The following errata were submitted by our customers and have not yet been approved or disproved by the author or editor. They solely represent the opinion of the customer.
| Version |
Location |
Description |
Submitted by |
Date submitted |
| PDF |
Page 11
2nd paragraph, 4th line |
Extra "that" in the line which reads:
(that is, a hyphen that that?s not safe for...
|
Anonymous |
Nov 11, 2008 |
| PDF, Other Digital Version |
Page 27
Example 1. Changing Fonts |
"{\fs60" should be "{\fs30" - the text before the example talks about 15-point, but 60 would be 30point.
|
Christoph_P |
May 21, 2012 |
| PDF |
Page 27
Second last paragraph, just before the example |
?favorite?, that?s in 15-point
should be
?favorite?, that?s in 30-point
because the line in the example is
You know, {\f1 grep} is my {\fs60 favorite} Unix command!
|
Shafique Jamal |
Oct 16, 2013 |
| Printed |
Page 32
2nd paragraph in the "The plain Formatting Command" section |
The text [, I shall!] should be in italics.
The scope of the i command for the whole sentence - "Or I SHALL scream!, I shall!".
If the [, I shall!] text should be plain then the example code should be changed to {i Or { I {scaps shall {plain scream!, I shall!}}}}
For example:
{
tf1ansideff0 {fonttbl {f0 Times;}}
{pard{i Or { I {scaps shall {plain scream!}}}, I shall!}par}
{pard{i Or { I {scaps shall {plain scream!, I shall!}}}}par}
}
Tested on Win XP using
Word 2003 (11.8169.8172) SP3
and
WordPad Version 5.1 SP2
and
OpenOffice 2.1
|
Anonymous |
|
| PDF |
Page 37
1st paragraph, 1st line. |
Where the text reads "it produces a ?,..." it should actually be "it produces an ?,..."
|
Anonymous |
Nov 11, 2008 |
| PDF |
Page 38
Last paragraph |
Missing the word "to" in the last line:
"But you don?t have ?to? use every font that you list
in the font table."
|
Anonymous |
Nov 11, 2008 |
| Printed |
Page 38
4th (?) paragraph |
Here is a font table with four declarations:
the 'four' should read 'three'
Last sentence on the same page
|
Eddie Hadley |
Feb 28, 2009 |
| Printed |
Page 38
4th (?) paragraph |
Here is a font table with four declarations:
the 'four' should read 'three'
Last sentence on the same page
|
Eddie Hadley |
Feb 28, 2009 |
| Printed |
Page 38
4th (?) paragraph |
Here is a font table with four declarations:
the 'four' should read 'three'
The last sentence on this page should read 'But you don't have to use . . .'
The 'to' is missing.
|
Eddie Hadley |
Feb 28, 2009 |
| Printed |
Page 39
4th paragraph |
The line 'The syntax for a font table ...'
should read 'The syntax for a color table ...'
|
Eddie Hadley |
Feb 28, 2009 |
| PDF, Other Digital Version |
Page 52
3rd paragraph, after second example |
Quote:
"...is that the second one is subject to English hyphenation rule
whereas the second one isn?t, since it?s in the null language."
The first second should be "first".
|
Christoph_P |
May 22, 2012 |
| Printed |
Page 64
Centering Vertically and Horizontally section |
The included code will work for RTF documents opened in MS Word, but
will not work for documents opened in WordPad or in any custom
application's RichTextBox control (as included in Visual Studio 2005),
even if the document is natively rendered to a printer or print preview
control.
|
Anonymous |
|
| Printed |
Page 74
Last code block |
The code block on page 74 ends with \trow. It should end with \row.
|
Anonymous |
Jan 03, 2011 |
| , Other Digital Version |
Page 7841
RFC Headers and Boilerplate |
EID 5248 (Verified) is as follows:
Section: A.2.2
Original Text:
Documents approved for publication
by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB",
"IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; ...
Corrected Text:
Documents approved for publication by the [stream approver
-- currently, one of: "IAB", "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are
not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; ...
Notes:
--- Verifier Notes : The originally submitted "Corrected Text" is below. The Corrected Text was edited to make it clear which option was chosen. ---
Documents approved for publication by the [stream approver
-- currently, one of: "IAB", "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are
not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; ...
--or--
A document approved for publication by the [stream approver
-- currently, one of: "IAB", "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] is
not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; ...
--- End Verifier Notes ---
The present sentence is egregiously bad English, at roughly the "every fourth-grader is English-speaking countries is expected to know better" level. Having it in this document and, because of what it specifies, in every non-IETF-stream RFC, reflects badly on the IAB, the RFC Editor, and the RFC Series. In addition, because we do not explicitly differentiate between boilerplate text and text supplied and approved by authors, it may reflect badly on individual document authors.
If it is not possible for this erratum to be quickly reviewed and approved, with the RFC Editor allowed to make this (and if necessary other) clearly editorial change to boilerplate text for documents published after today, I suggest that explicit notes be added to "Status of this Memo" sections going forward that identify the boilerplate text and its sources. For example, a new first sentence should be added immediately after "Status of this Memo" that says "This section and the one on Copyright that follows, are as specified by the Internet Architecture Board [RFC7841] and the Trustees of the IETF Trust."
The problem identified here may suggest that, when 7841 and similar documents are revised, it may be better to establish principles and leave specific text to agreements between the relevant bodies and the RFC Editor rather than building exact text to be used into archival and hard-to-revise documents.
|
Kerick |
Apr 02, 2021 |