- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 22:32:21 -0400
- To: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Background ---------- The Process TF discussed errata today. There was a motion to clarify a) That errata can include substantive changes, but not new features. b) That errata should be maintained frequently, at least quarterly. The problem with merely trying to enforce more frequent updates of errata is that the errata-management mandated by the Process is onerous for editors and WGs. Problem ------- One of the major problems with errata is that they are maintained as a separate document, independent of the text of the actual specification. This is a severe usability problem, as persons using the spec are expected to apply the diffs as they read. The current approach also means that an editor's draft which incorporates the changes cannot be published until the tests and passing implementations are available--which can take months or even years after an erratum is resolved by the WG. The CSS2.1 spec, for example, has not been kept up-to-date on /TR because of these requirements: the editor's draft accepts changes, but we cannot republish because not all of those changes have corresponding tests and passing implementations yet. Proposal -------- The proposal to resolve this problem is to keep the errata inline in the official REC publication. Two options make sense to me: A. Write in the errata as diff marks (using <ins> and <del>) in the spec. Maintain a separate list similar to a DoC explaining the changes, and possibly also tracking the status of their tests and impls. B. Fold in the errata completely into the spec text. Maintain a separate list of changes including the exact diffs from the validated REC text. Example ------- An example of approach B can be seen in the recent Flexbox LC: http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-css-flexbox-1-20140925/#changes The changes since the previous CR have been folded into the main text, but we have maintained a list distilling all non-trivial changes to help implementations understand the differences and be sure to update their implementations to match the changes. Where a section has gone through multiple revisions to resolve an issue, these are folded down to a single set of diffs between the dated (snapshotted) drafts, minimizing the noise in the changes list. The corresponding example of A would be for the diffs to be written directly into the main text rather than tracked in the Changes list. (There would then be no up-to-date text, only change-marked text.) Related Concerns ---------------- There's a separate question of how proposed corrections get ratified as official REC text. I'll post separately on this. Also, theoretically the errata page lists all known errors, not just those with proposed corrections. Since most groups track issues using some method other than an errata page on www.w3.org, that requirement is probably best handled as a link to the appropriate issues list. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 02:32:50 UTC