W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > February 2007

first draft proposed DTD-fix erratum (E01)

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:38:58 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20070220111855.03c92e30@rockynet.com>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

WebCGM WG,

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-20/WebCGM20-errata-20070220.html

I have taken a first try at the proposed erratum.  This is a topic for the 
Thursday telecon.  This draft should NOT be loaded into the WebCGM 2.0 
errata file location until we have discussed it.

Some topics to discuss:

1.) to what do the markup conventions in the header refer?  Are they the 
change history of the erratum itself?  Or for markup of proposed change 
text?  Or...?

2.) Is the body of the erratum itself okay, in particular breaking the 
single erratum into the five little subparts?

3.) How to coordinate errata processing with OASIS?  Some final 
clarifications of OASIS's own requirements are in progress, but some points 
and questions can be raised now.

3a.) Obviously the final outcome of the two processes must be the 
synchronized publication of technically identical errata by the two 
groups.  This is made more interesting by the unique nature of this erratum 
-- the DTD file at the URI of the System Identifier only exists in the Web 
space of *one* of the two organizations.

3b.) So ... how should we handle coordination of the intermediate stages of 
the processes?  Each organization progress it's own correction (files) 
until the end, when the final approved errata point to the same final result?

3c.) Should we synchronize any intermediate milestones of the 
organizations' respective errata processes?

-Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 19:39:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:10 GMT