Re: attention -- WG approval of 1.0 strategy

On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 16:29 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
> 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".

That's perfect, thank you.

> 
> 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 ?

No, they are usually batched, as you have done.

 _ Ian

> 
> 
> > 
> >  _ Ian
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447