- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:33:53 -0500
- To: Misha.Wolf@reuters.com, Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>, janet@w3.org, spec-prod@w3.org
- Cc: i18n-editor@w3.org
At 23:24 2001 10 15 +0100, Misha.Wolf@reuters.com wrote: >On 13/10/2001 09:06:20 Susan Lesch wrote: >[...] >> Richard Ishida wrote: >[...] > >> Thanks very much for your comments. (The errata link idea in your third >> message is great and I hope you get some more replies about it.) > >Susan was referring to Richard's mail: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2001OctDec/0002 > >| I can't help thinking that the link to the errata page is often a little >| hidden at the bottom of the status section, and yet the errata may contain >| important information. Would it make sense to include it in the document >| identification in a similar style to 'This version:" and 'Latest version:' ? > >The chairs list is silent on this sensible proposal. How do we >progress it? It's an obviously reasonable idea. I say take silence (on the chairs list) for consent. I haven't seen anyone on spec-prod complain, and if someone really cares about the production of specs, they should be on this mailing list. Unless someone on spec-prod speaks up soon, let's make this change to Susan's document, ask Norm to make the necessary change to xmlspec, and be done with it. paul
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 18:34:11 UTC