Confirmed fixed in a more recent version, as per #5. Closing.
** Changed in: libexif (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/712115
Title:
Text of
This is now fixed in upstream CVS.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/712115
Title:
Text of libexif Template “libexif-12” is incorrect
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubun
Dictionaries are not normative, particularly not modern ones: they just
report on observed usage. I was referring to standard-setting documents
such as those put out by ISO, IEEE, ANSI, and so on. They can't afford
to introduce ambiguities between distance and speed ---otherwise you end
up with dis
Normative documents like the Random House Dictionary
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knot), Princeton's WordNet
(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=knot), Webster's Revised
Unabridged Dictionary (http://dictionary.die.net/knot) and the Century
Dictionary (http://www.leoyan.com/cen
Clearly the original text suffers from a copy-paste mistake (wouldn't be
the first time a standard suffers from dumb errors like this). The
'knot' is *not* a unit of distance; it is only in informal usage (See
for instance http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictK.html) that the
nautical mile is made
"knot" is both a unit of speed and a unit of distance. Nautical miles
may be slightly clearer here, but the context makes it obvious which
meaning of knot is being used. Since the original text is what's used in
the EXIF spec itself, I'm hesitant to change it.
--
You received this bug notificatio
