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

Re: call for 1.0 errata

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:48:11 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Status report and correction...

So far, I have gotten zero response on this.  Does no one know of any 1.0 
errata?  I.e., you haven't even marked up your paper copy with typo 
corrections, etc?

Dave, would CGMO TC minutes contain any references to such stuff?  Could 
you either check them, or divide 'em up and delegate to other TC/WG members?

A correction to my earlier message is below embedded...

At 07:31 AM 6/22/2007 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>WebCGM WG --
>I have started the 1.0 errata document:
>Please send (to me and WG list) any 1.0 errata you are aware of, whether 
>significant or trivial editorial.
>In skeleton form, I have included the first two definite errata, E01 and 
>E02.  They need to be fleshed out considerably, so consider them mostly as 
>placeholders for now.
>I had a couple other ideas, E03 and E04.  I think E03 probably should be 
>an erratum -- the 1.0 text about searching priorities, etc, should be 
>clarified that it is "for example" , as 2.0 did (as opposed to some wooly 
>sort of normative specification, as it could be read now.)
>Upon further thought I think E04 -- correction of designation sequence 
>tails for SF -- should *not* be an erratum, and should be 
>dropped.  Looking at how we corrected the goof in 2.0 -- grandfathering 
>the 1.0 form of the tail while requiring the corrected form for 2.0 -- to 
>go back and correct it unambiguously in 1.0 would invalidate all presently 
>valid 1.0 content.  Bad idea, IMO.

The designation-sequence-tail glitch was actually about type S (graphical 
text), not type SF.  It was the 1.0 one-byte bug in how the d-s-t is 
specified in the Character Set List element.

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2007 14:48:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:40 UTC