W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Errata and Edited Recommendation

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:23:42 +0200
To: public-w3process@w3.org, "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>, "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Message-ID: <op.w4phpsd6y3oazb@chaals.local>
NB, I raised ISSUE-45 to cover this:  
https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/45

cheers

Chaals

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:10:27 +0200, Charles McCathie Nevile  
<chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:11:59 +0200, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
>
> [moved from the end to the beginning]
>> I would rather see the latest edited Recommendation roll in all the
>> stable, tested errata and have a non-empty errata list, rather than
>> the latest Edited Recommendation be years old and only make sense to
>> those people who can carry around large diff documents in their head
>> pertaining to all the stuff you need to "just know" about.
>
> I agree with your goal here.
>
> [and the rest including my response]
>> This comment relates to publishing an edited recommendation
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html#rec-publication
>>
>> I am concerned that the current text might be interpreted in a way
>> that leads to significant delay in the publication of Edited
>> Recommendations.
>>
>> Consider the following situation: a WG has dealt with 100 errata
>> items, which all have tests and an implementation report that shows
>> implementors are on board with the changes. They plan to publish an
>> Edited Rec on Tuesday. On Monday a new errata item is opened. Lets
>> assume it is non trivial and generates substantial discussion about
>> whether it is actually an error and if so, the best way to fix it.
>
> I am very reluctant to make the change.
>
> As you note, the Process says groups *should* include all known errata.
>
> If a Working Group doesn't understand RFC 2119 well enough to offer the  
> argument "it is useful to produce a better version soon, rather than  
> wait forever to produce a possibly perfect version", I don't think the  
> process document is the problem holding them back.
>
> Have there been real problems with this in the past, that suggest the  
> problem will recur?
>
>> Now consider the current wording from 7.4.5 Publication of a W3C
>> Recommendation.
>>
>>> To publish an Edited Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation, a Working  
>>> Group
>>
>>>    must republish the document, identifying it as the basis of a  
>>> Request for Recommendation.
>>>    must show that the document has received wide review
>>>    should document known implementation.
>>>    should address all errata.
>>
>> Its a SHOULD, but I can see groups interpreting that as 'the errata
>> queue must be empty' so another three months goes by while they deal
>> with that one erratum, make tests, get passes. Meanwhile another
>> erratum shows up and so on.
>>
>> Perhaps the following text would help? Not sure but its a start,
>> suggestions welcome.
>>
>>>   should either address all errata, or be published with a non-empty
>>>   errata list for those items still under discussion or awaiting
>>>   testing and implementation.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 21:24:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:09 UTC