Re: noting editorial changes to documents

On 10/02/2023 10:42, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> On 09/02/2023 23:52, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 2023, at 3:48 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
>>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I see that even typographical changes are noted in the changes 
>>> sections.  It seems to me that this is overkill.
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest that fixing typographical errors and other minor editorial 
>>> changes not be noted change sections.
>
> +1
>
>> +1 The historical change logs may have included this. I erred on the 
>> side of including both historical change logs and contributors, but 
>> arguably, these can be trimmed back, at least the change log. IMO, 
>> only normative or large structural changes need to be added to the 
>> change log.
>
> Aren't these changes sections for the formal steps of CR->PR->REC 
> (external review points) which do need to be noted?
Process-wise, we are working on first public working drafts, so I don't 
think we are required to log the changes we make w.r.t. the previous REC.
>
> Non-trivial, non-normative should be noted for this WG at least 
> because of the charter.  I don't think we will have many such items.

Agreed. But this can be documented in the rdf-new document, IMO.

See for example :

https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#changes


   pa

>
>     Andy
>
>>
>> Gregg
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>
>