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

Re: call for 1.0 errata

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:14:05 +0200
Message-ID: <468E4E2D.7050003@w3.org>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
CC: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Lofton,

I am not aware of any 1.0 errata, as I was not present at that time to 
track them.
If you want me to investigate in certain mailing lists, or how I can 
help, let me know.



  Henderson wrote:
> 
> 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:
>> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-10/webcgm10-errata-20070621.html 
>>
>>
>> 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.
> 
> -Lofton.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 14:14:08 GMT

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