W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > May 2006

(unknown charset) Re: Agenda for XML Core WG te

From: (unknown charset <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:42:15 +0100
To: (unknown charset) "Grosso, Paul"
Cc: (unkno
Message-ID: <f5bslnaowu0.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Grosso, Paul writes:

> I just ran through what we call "substantive" errata in
> http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V11-1e-errata
> and I see rationales like:
>  "This was an oversight...."
>  "The sentence was inconsistent with another one...."
>  "It was not clear...."
>  "The spec was not clear...."
>  "The S in production [32] ... was mistakenly changed ... in XML 1.1...."
>  "The original text confusingly used the word "intent"...."
>
> Those all sound like spec clarifications, not anything
> that requires "implementation"--or at least, nothing
> that requires that we document that it is implementable.
>
> As such, I see nothing wrong with continuing to point
> to the same implementation reports as we do in the
> previous editions for both specs.

We may be able to avoid this whole issue.

The W3C Process [1] identifies four possible classes of changes to a
Recommendation:

  "1. No changes to text content
      These changes include fixing broken links or invalid markup.

  "2. Corrections that do not affect conformance
      Editorial changes or clarifications that do not change the
      technical content of the specification.

  "3. Corrections that MAY affect conformance, but add no new features

      These changes MAY affect conformance to the Recommendation. A
      change that affects conformance is one that:

       1. turns conforming data, processors, or other conforming
       agents into non-conforming agents, or

       2. turns non-conforming agents into conforming ones, or

       3. clears up an ambiguity or under-specified part of the
       specification in such a way that an agent whose conformance was
       once unclear becomes clearly conforming or non-conforming.

  "4. New features"

Only (3) and (4) _require_ a call for review.  We have a choice:
either we forget trying to distinguish between (2) and (3) and go
ahead with a Call for Review, or we argue for a (2) and no review.

If we _do_ decide on doing a Call for Review, I agree that short
documents pointing to the ImplReports for the previous editions would
be sufficient -- Philippe, do you agree?

ht

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-modify
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEaeTHkjnJixAXWBoRAvzSAJ9gl6NuTK1goxV9irigemdn6T1wkgCdGuq8
nsJtPzW+VdeU7ZkAtU95PDU=
=Mg8b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2006 16:39:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:33 GMT