html5/decision-policy decision-policy-v2.html,1.31,1.32

Update of /sources/public/html5/decision-policy
In directory hutz:/tmp/cvs-serv21263

Modified Files:
	decision-policy-v2.html 
Log Message:
Various typos in Decision Policy
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12733


Index: decision-policy-v2.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/public/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html,v
retrieving revision 1.31
retrieving revision 1.32
diff -u -d -r1.31 -r1.32
--- decision-policy-v2.html	20 Jun 2011 06:19:04 -0000	1.31
+++ decision-policy-v2.html	20 Jun 2011 06:29:33 -0000	1.32
@@ -262,7 +262,7 @@
 commenter. Once reopened, the issue returns
 to <a href="#basic-step-1">step 1</a>.</dd>
 
-<d id="basic-step-5d">5.d. No: Escalate to Issue</dt>
+<dt id="basic-step-5d">5.d. No: Escalate to Issue</dt>
 <dd><p>If the commenter is dissatisfied with the resolution and does
 not believe it is productive to ask the editor to reconsider, he or
 she may ask to escalate the issue to the issue tracker. A commenter
@@ -839,7 +839,7 @@
 
 <ul>
 <li>We do not expect this process to be used casually over random
-changes. Snyone asking for this would have to convince the
+changes. Anyone asking for this would have to convince the
 chairs that the change reduces consensus.</li>
 
 <li>We think there is little chance of this process being used to
@@ -885,7 +885,7 @@
 in the Working Group.</li>
 
 <li>It can't be guaranteed that no revert would lead to a fork of specific
-paragraphs or sentences; but it is *highly* likely that most calls for
+paragraphs or sentences; but it is <em>highly</em> likely that most calls for
 a revert could be dealt with so that there is simply omitted text or
 additional text in the W3C draft relative to the WHATWG draft.</li>
 
@@ -896,13 +896,13 @@
 <ul>
 
 <li>If a spec change that gets reverted was based on a bug, the bug
-effectively goes WONTFIX.It would have to be owned by and given a
-rationale by the Chairs, since it wouldn't be the editors choice to
+effectively goes WONTFIX. It would have to be owned by and given a
+rationale by the Chairs, since it wouldn't be the editor's choice to
 revert. This bug could be escalated through the normal channels by
 those who wish to reinstate the reverted change.</li>
 
 <li>A speedy revert would not be a permanent WG decision, not even for
-Last Call; it would simply a temporary mesure to maintain the
+Last Call; it would simply a temporary measure to maintain the
 perception of fairness for all Working Group members and to avoid the
 feeling that there is no recourse for certain changes.</li>

Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 06:29:41 UTC