W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: Errata link in specs

From: <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:48:39 +0100
Message-ID: <T56acb4feb3c407b7069dc@reuters.com>
To: spec-prod@w3.org, janet@w3.org, lesch@w3.org, ij@w3.org

On 15/10/2001 23:33:53 Paul Grosso wrote:
> At 23:24 2001 10 15 +0100, Misha.Wolf@reuters.com wrote:
> >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.

I think the documents we need to change are:
-  Publication Rules [1]
-  How to Write a W3C Technical Report [2]

Please would the owner(s) of these docuemnts either make the
change or speak up against it.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules
[2] http://www.w3.org/Guide/Reports


        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2001 09:55:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:16 UTC