W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2004

Re: [CSS2] Spec Typo

From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 11:09:17 -0400
Message-ID: <410-2200453515917406@mindspring.com>
To: "David Dorward" <david@dorward.me.uk>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>


David Dorward wrote:
>
> On 5 May 2004, at 15:03, Davey wrote:
> > Not sure if this is the right/best place to post this, but here goes. 
> > If it is not, please
> > feel free to point me in a better direction.
> >
> > There is a small typo in the CSS 2 Spec.
> > The definition for "ridge" has "groove" spelt incorrectly (grove).
> >
> > Hope somebody fixes this minor mistake :)
>
>       http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/REC-CSS2-19980512-errata.html
>
>       Section 8.5.3 Border style
>       Under the definition of "ridge", change "grove" to "groove".
>
> Why is it that the primary document doesn't get updated when these 
> errors are found? The date based URIs would still point to the exact 
> same content for purposes of citation, and it would make it much easier 
> to read the specification (as it would eliminate the need to check the 
> errata for what is now a rather large number of corrections).

Several reasons.  First of all, it's possible to introduce new errors when
editing a document, so making silent "corrections" should not be done.
Secondly, even if the mistakes were corrected as they were found, having
a tracking document for the errata is helpful.  Thirdly, there is no third.
:)

Still, it would be nice if a second edition incorporating the errata to date
was put out considering the age of the current spec, as has been done
for other ancient specs such as XML 1.0 despite work on XML 1.1.
On the other hand, it's hardly the most critical of things for them to do.
Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2004 11:09:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:29 GMT