Re: noting editorial changes to documents

On 10/02/2023 22:44, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> On Feb 10, 2023, at 4:13 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin 
>> <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Those changes were necessary in the RDF 1.1 version as it was 
> transitioning. Arguably, there’s really no need to keep that change 
> log in the 1.2 document, as you can always go back to see it 
> (particularly for the detailed transition bits). I think keeping a 
> summary of those earlier changes is useful, but can/should be edited.
+1
>
>>>
>>> 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

>
> Yes, some specs used that pattern, but I think it’s better to keep a 
> set of changes in the document.
>
> Note that ReSpec has support (of course) for managing this for you 
> through a range of commit dates using the commit messages [1], but I 
> don’t think that’s as useful as hand-written entries. It might be 
> useful for the post-transition phase, though.
Agreed
>
> Gregg
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/rs-changelog

>
>>   pa
>>
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>>>
>>>>> peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> <OpenPGP_0x9D1EDAEEEF98D438.asc>
>