Re: update to errata document

Lofton Henderson wrote:
> At 05:07 PM 6/12/2007 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>> Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>> Hi Thierry,
>>> Because of circumstances beyond our control, OASIS has only just 
>>> finally populated its final errata document URIs for the initial 
>>> WebCGM 2.0 erratum.
>>> Our REC 2.0 errata document is at:
>>> [0] http://www.w3.org/2006/WebCGM20-errata.html
>> [...]
>> There was a bug in this REC 2.0 errata document:
>> The
>>
>> This document records known errors in the document:
>>     http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/Group/2006/REC-webcgm20-20070115/
>>
>>
>> changed to
>> This document records known errors in the document:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070130/
> 
> Oops, good catch.
> 
> 
>>> The only thing that changed on the OASIS side, since March, is that 
>>> the corrected DTD was moved to its final location, and OASIS's 
>>> symlink of the WebCGM 2.0 System Identifier (section 4.2.3) was 
>>> redefined to point at that final location.
>>> That final location is reference [7] in our W3C errata document, and 
>>> its correct value is now:
>>> [7] 
>>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/errata/os/webcgm20-20070509.dtd
>>
>> OK
>>> In addition to changing that, I have done some light editing on the 
>>> errata document, and placed the result at:
>>> [1] 
>>> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-20/webcgm20-errata-20070611.html 
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have also changed to the correct WebCGM Rec URI (same fix as above) to
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070130/
> 
> Good.
> 
> 
>>> If you read the section "WG-approved resolution", you'll see the 
>>> light editing around the corrected URI [7], mostly adjusting status 
>>> from "proposed" to "approved".  You will also notice (elsewhere) that 
>>> I changed various dates to "June 2007", "June 11...", etc.  I'm not 
>>> sure if that was appropriate or not.  You can change them back, if 
>>> the original March dates should remain (the change was purely 
>>> editorial ... a new URI for the final DTD location ... I assume we 
>>> don't need a new WG resolution.)
>>
>> um not sure why you want to change thoses dates (as this errata was 
>> already published in March.
>> Is that because of your updates ?
> 
> I guess I'm asking:  should we change those dates or not?  My updates 
> were purely editorial, not substantive.  So there is a good case that 
> the old dates are the right ones.  (And there is some case for the other 
> way as well.)
> 
> What do you think?  (Maybe the CVS date string near the top can indicate 
> the uniqueness of this editorial version?)
> 
> -Lofton.
> 

There are no W3C guidelines for this kind of issue.
I am OK for both kind of dates.
Do what you think is best.

Thierry.