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

Re: first draft proposed DTD-fix erratum (E01)

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:17:21 +0100
Message-ID: <45E3F721.4090107@w3.org>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
CC: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Lofton ,

Thank you for drafting this errata fix.

Henderson wrote:
> 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...?

I guess tou are talking about
Added text marked thus. Removed text marked thus. Changed text marked thus."

These color coded are ment to ease the unstanding of the proposed 
changes. For example see the SMIL Errata page at

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

Yes breaking into 5 subparts is fine. I would recommend using the color 
coded convention. I would also specify the "type" of errata
Correction /Minor typo/Clarification/Substantive ...
> 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.

At W3C it is rather easy, the WebCGM WG discuss the errata, write a fix 
and then publishes it at http://www.w3.org/2006/WebCGM20-errata.html 
(when it decides to do so)

There is no approval process other than the WG as we are not *changing 
conformance* nor adding *New features*, but only correcting a bug in the 

I see this has been discussed during the Telecon

I agree to what was said there.
> 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?

That would be preferable. At W3C we can easily synchronize with OASIS 
> -Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 09:17:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:39 UTC