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

So, I think I might have gotten lost here. Looking over the W3C process 
document:

https://www.w3.org/policies/process/

It seems to me that as long as the current versions of the documents 
are, well, the current versions, we should continue to maintain them, 
including tracking errata. So, AS2 Core and Vocabulary (2017) and AP (2018).

After we publish AS2 Core and Vocabulary (2026) and AP (2026), those 
older versions are "Superseded" and don't have the same maintenance 
requirements.

This seems pretty straightforward to me, so I'm going to keep bringing 
errata to these mailing lists for AS2-2017 and AP-2018, until they are 
superseded.

Evan

On 2026-04-14 15:30, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> út 14. 4. 2026 v 21:24 odesílatel Darius Kazemi 
> <darius.kazemi@gmail.com> napsal:
>
>     I agree, Melvin, that we need to explicitly scope any fast
>     tracking, but critically Evan has listed two things here:
>
>      - spelling errors
>      - "syntax errors in examples", which are indeed non-normative and
>     distinct from syntax errors in specification language.
>
>     Both of these are definitionally class 2 changes per W3C process:
>     https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#class-2
>
>     So Evan is proposing something that is already scoped for us by
>     the W3C, and imo entirely appropriate.
>
>     Of course even class 2 changes will and should be visible for
>     review, and if anyone notices a class 3 or 4 change slipping in
>     under the guise of a class 2 change I encourage them to raise a
>     flag to the group! But I expect that to be rare if we stick to
>     strict W3C change class definitions.
>
>
> Sounds good. One note from Class 2:
>
> “If there is any doubt or disagreement as to whether a change 
> functionally affects interpretation, that change does not fall into 
> this class.”
>
> In practice, disagreements on classification do arise, so it may be 
> worth being explicit that such cases are escalated.
>
>
>     -Darius
>
>
>     On Tue, Apr 14, 2026, 1:57 PM Melvin Carvalho
>     <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>         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
>