Re: attention -- WG approval of 1.0 strategy

Lofton,

The process you are referring to is

When a WG publishes Normative errata (Issuing a Call for Review of 
Proposed Corrections),by the way a process *never* yet used at W3C by 
any WG.
When publishing Normative errata, the Group commits to publish an edited 
Recommendation within 6 months.(issuing a Call for Review of an Edited 
Recommendation).

For WebCGM10 errata, the WebCGM WG has decided, not to use this process 
but to publish WG approved errata. (Note that this is what most W3C WGs 
are doing. And most don't even mention that these are not Normative 
errata) [1].
Therefore the Group will not release a WebCGM10 third version.
I discussed this Chris, and he agreed.


For WebCGM20 errata, the WebCGM needs to decide if he wants to use the 
same simple process or issue a Call for Review of an Edited 
Recommendation) for WebCGM20 second release.


[1]. for example see
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/DOM-Level-3-errata
http://www.w3.org/2004/03/voicexml20-errata.html
http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/REC-CSS2-19980512-errata.html
http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xmldsig-errata
http://www.w3.org/2003/01/REC-SVG11-20030114-errata



  Henderson wrote:
> One comment about Ian's reply to Thierry (with whose assessment I agree)...
> 
> At 02:30 PM 9/19/2007 +0000, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 16:21 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>> > Ian B. Jacobs wrote:

>>
>> > >
>> > > I see above "to skip the hassle of republishing an entire new 
>> WebCGM 1.0
>> > > Third Release document" Please note that the process for approved
>> > > corrections does require publication within 6 months. Can the group
>> > > confirm here their intention to publish within 6 months after
>> > > the end of the formal review period?
>> >
>> > The WebCGM WG does not plan to publish a third release of WebCGM 1.0.
>>
>> Then it is inappropriate to use the process that expects such a
>> publication [1]:
>>
>>   "In order for the corrections to remain normative, the Working Group
>>    MUST incorporate them into an edited Recommendation."
> 
> As I pointed out, a little earlier in the Process errata section the 
> rationales were given, and we believe that they do nor pertain.  So 
> should we spend the valuable resources anyway, to bring a very old 
> document up to current pubrules and republish?
> 
> Regards,
> -Lofton.
>

Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 07:38:27 UTC