Re: attention -- WG approval of 1.0 strategy

Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 11:09 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>>
>> I wonder how one can tell if the errata are normative or not.
> 
> It is important to label them "non-normative" on the errata page.
> Thank you,



I have looked at other errata page and I see that most of them do not 
mention anything about been "non-normative"

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


I could not find anywhere in our W3C process or guidelines, mentioning 
this "non-normative" on the errata page.

Anyway, I propose to add the following text:

"These corrections are proposed by the WebCGM Working Group, which has 
consensus that they are appropriate; they are not to be considered 
normative until approved by a Call for Review of Proposed Corrections or 
a Call for Review of an Edited Recommendation".


Finally I am curious to understand how this actually works. Does it mean 
that if one wants to have normative errata page fro a Rec, each time 
there is a new errata the WG needs to go to a Call for Review of 
Proposed Corrections and is committed to publish within 6 months a new 
Edited Recommendation ?



> 
>  _ Ian