W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > September 2007

Proposal to close ACTION-349, proposal for managing errata

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:38:20 -0400
Message-Id: <5662205A-2E57-409B-8942-76EB188165ED@nokia.com>
Cc: Hirsch Frederick <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, WS-Policy Editors W3C <public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org>
To: "public-ws-policy@w3.org policy" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

The following is a proposal from the editorial team on how to manage  
errata, to close ACTION-349.

1. Each errata item will indicate whether it is substantive or  
editorial.

2. Each errata item will include the following information
* A unique entry number
* The date it was added to the errata page.
  * The section  referred to.
* A description of the problem and correction if applicable. Changes  
to the text of the spec are indicated thus: deleted text, new text,  
modified text .
  * A rationale for making the change (not required for editorial  
errata).

3. There will be an errata page per document (the editorial team did  
not discuss this one explicitly)

4. Decisions regarding errata are made by the WS-Policy WG during  
that WG life, and after WS-Policy WG closes, by any subsequently  
chartered maintenance WG  [1]. Decisions include accepting errata,  
and how to categorize as either Substantive or Editorial and the  
details of the errata item.

5. The format of the errata document will be the same as used by WS- 
Addressing, an HTML file that includes red-line format to indicate  
changes [2].

6. The mechanics of errata management can be simple: the errata  
document is a single HTML file that is directly edited and checked  
into CVS when updated. The CVS portion is for the web so when checked  
in it immediately is visible on the web.

Staging is a complication that may or may not be necessary. Editors  
ask WG and chairs what they suggest. (Without explicit staging  
editors could still share and review HTML before checkin, or two  
checkins to different areas could be used for example).

7. While the WS-Policy WG continues the editorial team will manage  
the errata documents, so all WS-Policy editors will need appropriate  
access permissions. After the WS-Policy WG closes how to  manage will  
be decision of subsequent maintenance WG [1].

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia

[1] If there is no subsequent WG for maintenance then the errata will  
not be maintained. If a WG is chartered for maintenance then that  
group would maintain the errata.

[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/05/ws-addr-errata.html
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2007 19:39:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:53 GMT