RE: w3process-ISSUE-155 (Errata Access in RECs): Errata access from TR page [Process Document]

Jeff,
This is one of two issues that I agreed to raise when we resolved Issue 141. The other will come shortly. The point of raising the issue is that our resolution of Issue 141 left this issue potentially unsolved. It could be solved in Process 2016 or if some great idea surfaces soon it could be resolved during comment processing on the Process 2015 draft. Like Issue-154 before it, it is just an Issue, the timing of its resolution is not implied by raising it.

Steve Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 3:12 PM
> To: Revising W3C Process Community Group; Stephen Zilles
> Subject: Re: w3process-ISSUE-155 (Errata Access in RECs): Errata access from
> TR page [Process Document]
> 
> Steve,
> 
> I'm confused about the timing of this issue.  I thought that the document we
> asked the AB to review is the one we would like the AB to bring to the
> Membership.  How does that align with raising new issues against the text that
> we are proposing to the AB/AC?
> 
> Jeff
> 
> On 2/7/2015 6:06 PM, Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
> wrote:
> > w3process-ISSUE-155 (Errata Access in RECs): Errata access from TR
> > page [Process Document]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/155

> >
> > Raised by: Steve Zilles
> > On product: Process Document
> >
> > This issue arose because, in the original discussion of Issue-141 Errata
> Management [0], some of the commenters (and, in particular, Fantasai [1])
> noted that people (whether users or developers or implementers) were going
> to the REC (via the TR pages) and getting out of date information.
> >
> > [0] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/141

> > [1]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0139.html

> >
> > The goal of these commenters was to attempt to insure that people
> accessing RECs would be aware that there might be more current information
> which, although not yet normative, was better than that in the REC.
> >
> > Some people have argued that RECs should stay as they are and that such
> updated information should be in a separate document which itself might take
> a number of forms, ranging from an auto-generated errata/issues/bugs list to
> a draft of the REC which has the Errata text in situ.  There seems to be little
> disagreement that a separate document can be used. The disagreement
> seems to be whether the REC document can, itself, have better indications as
> to what the errata are and what changes are proposed to correct the errata.
> >
> > The November proposal [2] allowed the REC to be updated in place provided
> that a reader could recover, say by a style sheet change or some other
> mechanism, the original text of the Normative REC. Recent commenters seem
> to believe that this would be a bad thing for the W3C to do although in
> practice this may be little different from having a separate draft with the
> errata.
> >
> > [2]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0121.html

> >
> > The goal of this issue is to find solutions associating a REC and its
> > Errata that both (1) make it easy and natural for someone retrieving
> > the REC document to find the most up-to-date document (including
> > Errata) and (2) preserve the necessary permanence of a REC. (Here,
> > “necessary permanence” is intended to mean what the community thinks is
> necessary to insure is preserved; we already allow updates to things like
> broken links in place so permanence does not mean bit by bit fidelity.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Received on Saturday, 7 February 2015 23:46:19 UTC