Re: Tracking errata for ActivityPub, Activity Streams core and Activity Vocabulary

pá 3. 4. 2026 v 18:52 odesílatel Evan Prodromou <
evanp@socialwebfoundation.org> napsal:

> For the last few years, the CG has tracked incoming issues for the
> ActivityPub and Activity Streams 2.0 specifications, and when errors are
> noted, we have maintained a list of errata.
>
> During our joint discussion today, we proposed adopting the versions of
> these docs with errata corrections applied as the basis of the next version
> of the documents.
>
> It seems to me that this is a good point to stop tracking errata for these
> documents, and start making those changes directly to the new drafts. For
> example, spelling errors or syntax errors in the examples.
>

One concern is defining “spelling errors or syntax errors” as a class of
changes. In practice, once a fast-track category exists, there can be
disagreement over whether a change fits that class.

At W3C this often becomes a classification question, where proponents view
changes as minor but reviewers may not. When in doubt, these typically need
to be treated as the higher class.

It may help to define a lightweight mechanism for resolving classification
disputes, or to explicitly scope this path to clearly non-normative changes
only.


>
> Does this reflect everyone else's understanding of the state of the
> documents? Is there a reason I don't see clearly to keep tracking errata
> separately?
>
> In this case, I'd like to refocus the work on issue triage to triage of
> proposed changes to the drafts of the WG, rather than as a pipeline to
> errata updates.
>
> Evan
>