- From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 19:49:43 +0300
- To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
20.01.2015, 19:43, "Wayne Carr" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>: > On 2015-01-20 07:37, David Singer wrote: >> šrevised in line with the call on 20 Jan: >> >> š7.7.1 Errata Management >> >> šTracking errors is an important part of a Working Group's ongoing care of a Recommendation; for this reason, the scope of a Working Group charter generally allows time for work after publication of a Recommendation. In this Process Document, the term "erratum" (plural "errata") refers to any error that can be resolved by one or more changes in classes 1-3 of section 7.2.5 Classes of Changes. >> >> šA Working Group must keep a record as errors are reported by readers and implementers. Such error reports should be processed no less frequently than quarterly. Readers of the Recommendation should be able easily to find and see the errata that apply to that specific Recommendation. >> >> šWorking groups may decide how to document errata. The best practice is a document that identifies itself as based on the Recommendation text and clearly identifies the errata and any proposed corrections; other approaches include various forms of an errata page, possibly auto-generated from a database. >> >> šPENDING QUESTION to add?: It is also a best practice to alert readers to the existence of the errata, via a statement and link in the header of the recommendation document. > > Why not require that a REC must link to it's errata? You already have that (not in so many words): "Readers of the Recommendation should be able easily to find and see the errata that apply to that specific Recommendation." Para 2. cheers -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 16:50:16 UTC