Re: [w3c sml] 2009-10-12 meeting

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Arwe writes:

> We appear to have consensus (based on the absence of objections) to
> acknowledging all past contributors in some form.  We need to decide
> on the method for that (erratum vs the Proposed Edited Rec process,
> which is to first order similar to any other draft we did in the
> past... create the updated text, make a Transition Request, several
> week review period, Publication Request).

This is a false dichotomy -- the route to a PER goes through errata
as a first step.

>  - Henry, I've looked at the references below but find few details
> on the erratum process; e.g. once the text is drafted and approved,
> how do the erratum pages actually get updated?

Different ways in different groups, but in this case the answer is
that I will do it.

"Do it" means add a section to [1] which would look something like
this:

  E01

  Appendix G

    Update Appendix G, as follows:

      G. Acknowledgements (non-normative)

      [Diff-displayed new contents of appendix G]

See e.g. [2] to see what this looks like.

ht

[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/sml-errata
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-4e-errata#E05
- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
                         Half-time member of W3C Team
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFK0y8vkjnJixAXWBoRAnN3AJ9nJXDT/sXwjsO8Bf1Eb80h3vr+ogCfWH1b
Uuz55ZCmPBer4zfAMKd7Mhg=
=r+mg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 13:29:50 UTC