- 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