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: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:33:02 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

At 04:14 PM 7/6/2007 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>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.

Thanks for the offer, Thierry.

I suspect that most discussion after REC (originally 1999, again 2001) 
happened outside of W3C.  There wasn't a WG to tend to it, but rather Chris 
& I took the mostly completed work from the CGM Open Consortium, and 
fast-tracked it to REC in W3C.

I'm going to put a little more thought into where, if anywhere, 1.0 errata 
may have gotten documented.


>  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:
>>>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 Friday, 6 July 2007 14:33:00 UTC

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