- From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:09:33 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Lofton Henderson wrote:
>
> WebCGM WG --
>
> Ian's comment caught my attention:
>
>> Right. There is no requirement to incorporate them normatively. But then
>> they are not normative. It's up to the community to decide what it needs
>> in the name of interoperability and usability of documents.
>
> Given the entire context around this correction-set for 1.0, and given
> our expectations for future 1.0 usage (very low), it might suffice for
> us to leave them non-normative.
>
> To be clear, the new 1.0 errata document would replace the current
> (empty) errata document at the errata link [1] in the present 1.0 spec
> header. And each erratum documents that the WebCGM WG approved it as
> correct and appropriate ("...telecon of YYYY-MM-DD"). But they would
> not have the formal W3C "normative" status.
>
> I think that might be enough, if going normative forces us to republish.
I agree to your proposal
>
> Thoughts?
>
I wonder how one can tell if the errata are normative or not.
Received on Friday, 21 September 2007 09:09:11 UTC