Re: Errata and Edited Recommendation

Hi Chris,

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:11:59 +0200, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:

[moved from the end to the beginning]
> I would rather see the latest edited Recommendation roll in all the
> stable, tested errata and have a non-empty errata list, rather than
> the latest Edited Recommendation be years old and only make sense to
> those people who can carry around large diff documents in their head
> pertaining to all the stuff you need to "just know" about.

I agree with your goal here.

[and the rest including my response]
> This comment relates to publishing an edited recommendation
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html#rec-publication
>
> I am concerned that the current text might be interpreted in a way
> that leads to significant delay in the publication of Edited
> Recommendations.
>
> Consider the following situation: a WG has dealt with 100 errata
> items, which all have tests and an implementation report that shows
> implementors are on board with the changes. They plan to publish an
> Edited Rec on Tuesday. On Monday a new errata item is opened. Lets
> assume it is non trivial and generates substantial discussion about
> whether it is actually an error and if so, the best way to fix it.

I am very reluctant to make the change.

As you note, the Process says groups *should* include all known errata.

If a Working Group doesn't understand RFC 2119 well enough to offer the  
argument "it is useful to produce a better version soon, rather than wait  
forever to produce a possibly perfect version", I don't think the process  
document is the problem holding them back.

Have there been real problems with this in the past, that suggest the  
problem will recur?

> Now consider the current wording from 7.4.5 Publication of a W3C
> Recommendation.
>
>> To publish an Edited Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation, a Working  
>> Group
>
>>    must republish the document, identifying it as the basis of a  
>> Request for Recommendation.
>>    must show that the document has received wide review
>>    should document known implementation.
>>    should address all errata.
>
> Its a SHOULD, but I can see groups interpreting that as 'the errata
> queue must be empty' so another three months goes by while they deal
> with that one erratum, make tests, get passes. Meanwhile another
> erratum shows up and so on.
>
> Perhaps the following text would help? Not sure but its a start,
> suggestions welcome.
>
>>   should either address all errata, or be published with a non-empty
>>   errata list for those items still under discussion or awaiting
>>   testing and implementation.

cheers

Chaals


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 21:10:59 UTC