Re: CFC: Tombstone "formerType" Property Range Needs Clarification (Issue #440 Activity Streams)

I'd normally think so, too! But the W3C Errata process only talks about 
candidate corrections:

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

So, we're now adding candidate corrections to the errata. Thanks to Ben 
Goering for pointing this out!

Evan

On 2025-08-29 2:34 p.m., nightpool wrote:
> Why does the erratum only give a "possible" correction? Shouldn't it 
> be more definite if we're going to apply this to the editor's draft?
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 10:05 AM Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> 
> wrote:
>
>     This is a call for consensus for an erratum to apply to the
>     Activity Vocabulary specification. If there are no objections in
>     14 calendar days (Sep 12 2025 23:59:59 AOE), I will add this text
>     to the Activity Streams errata and apply the change to the
>     editor's draft of the Activity Vocabulary document.
>
>     The issue is linked here with further discussion:
>     https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/440
>
>     The proposed erratum is:
>
>     /In Section 4, the range of the formerType property is given
>     as Object. The property should have the same range as
>     the type property for which it forms a replacement for
>     deleted Tombstone objects. One possible correction is to replace
>     the range of the formerType property with anyURI, to match type./
>
>     Evan
>