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

about OASIS-W3C errata coordination

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:25:09 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20070222080653.03ca55b0@localhost>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

At 02:34 PM 2/21/2007 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>[...]
>         - the process [1]
>         - the first bug [2]
>         - coordination with OASIS process [3]

 From [3], OASIS has this invariant 4-step process:
O1.) TC adopts the proposed errata as a Committee Draft
O2.) TC confirms that the proposed errata do not constitute a Substantive 
Change.
O3.) TC submits the proposed corrections for a 15-day public review
O4.) TC confirms the proposed errata as Approved Errata.

The W3C process is variable, based on "class", but these quotes from [1] 
seem to fit our case:
W1.) the WG "proposes" (meaning?) the errata
W2.) "first two classes of change require no technical review of the 
proposed changes"
W3.) That's all?

This erratum is a no-brainer, obvious editorial goof.  Nevertheless, in 
OASIS, the steps O1-O4 must be executed, but can be expected to be 
quick.  In W3C, it looks like step W1 involves a WG vote, and then it's 
done?  In step W3, we would change the status from "proposed" to approved 
in the errata document?

So O1 would correspond to W1, and we would work out the timing so that O4 
and W3 coincide?

-Lofton.

>[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#errata
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Feb/0010.html
>[3] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#3.5
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2007 15:25:36 GMT

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