- From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 07:05:35 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@svgeesus Sorry I missed the question. Yes, I agree with what you did on that. Thanks for handling this more-annoying-than-usual publication. By the way, I just noticed the document links to a (for now empty) separate errata page. That's the historical practice, but [as of Process 2021](https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#errata), that's no longer the only option: > Errata may be documented in a separate errata page or tracking system. They may, in addition or alternatively, be annotated inline alongside the affected technical report text or at the start or end of the most relevant section(s). I don't believe we've made a decision either way since this became an option, but maybe we should consider switching to inline-only errata? Separate documents can easily go out of sync, and are typically not looked at much. -- GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6962#issuecomment-1088339556 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2022 07:05:36 UTC