- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:42:29 +0100
- To: "W3C Process Community Group" <public-w3process@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:40:10 +0100, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > # A substantive change (whether deletion, inclusion, or other > modification) > # is one where someone could reasonably expect that making the change > would > # invalidate an individual's review or implementation experience. > Other > # changes (e.g., clarifications, bug fixes, editorial repairs, and > minor > # error corrections) are minor changes. > > If "substantive change" and "minor change" are meant to be mutually > exclusive (which it sounds like they are), then this paragraph is > self-contradictory: > a bug fix, error correction, or clarification can be reasonably expected > to invalidate an individual's review or implementation experience if > they had read the spec previously as saying other than what the WG > intended. Agreed. (This text is also in the current process, BTW). > For example, let's say a step in the Flexbox algorithm forgot to mention > that the width should be clamped to the specified min/max constraints. > This is clearly an error from the WG's perspective. But someone > implementing based on the old text might have left out that step because > it was not in the spec originally. Thus this change is bot a "bug fix" > and a "substantive change". I think the issue here is really whether it invalidates a review, or affects conformance. Anything that does is a substantive change, and I think that should be clarified. I'll raise an issue on the definition of changes (or you can do it - the issue tracker should work for anyone in the CG). cheers chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 1 November 2013 02:43:00 UTC