- From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:14:05 +0200
- 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 UTC