- From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:33:58 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- CC: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Lofton Ok let's discuss on 11 october, a fast WebCGM 2.1, which would include new features and 2.0 errata. Thierry. Henderson wrote: > > Hi Thierry, > > Thanks for the process summary about how errata are made normative. One > reply, embedded... > > At 09:38 AM 10/5/2007 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote: >> [...] >> 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. > > Now that the options are clear, let's discuss them at the 11-october > telecon. Also affecting our decision will be whether or not OASIS and > W3C decide to pursue a small, fast WebCGM 2.1 (handful of additions to > WebCGM 2.0). That topic will be on the agenda. > > Regards, > -Lofton. > > > >> [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 14:34:21 UTC