- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:51:09 +1100
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
- Cc: art.barstow@nokia.com, chaals@opera.com, schepers@w3.org
Hello WG. Since there were no objections to the idea of publishing an erratum to solve the issue with the Element Traversal binding licensing, I’ve created a candidate errata page: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/ElementTraversal/REC-ElementTraversal-20081222-errata.html along with two zip files: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/ElementTraversal/ElementTraversal-idl.zip The IDL in here has some extra OMG IDLness around it, to be consistent with the DOM specs’ IDL. http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/ElementTraversal/ElementTraversal-java-binding.zip The java file in here has Javadoc comments with text adapted from the spec, as requested by Michael. Those two zip files have a COPYRIGHT.html file which is just the same as the one from the DOM Level 3 Core zip files, but with the copyright date updated. So notably, this includes the extra clause about not modifying the Java package name, etc. The erratum has three parts: * It updates the SotD section to add the extra licensing clause. * It updates the IDL section to link to the proposed IDL zip file. * It updates the Java section to link to the proposed Java binding zip file. I expect the zip files will need to be installed somewhere in W3C date space. I’ve guessed URLs for the two zip files (since they need to be referenced from the erratum text): http://www.w3.org/2009/01/ElementTraversal-idl.zip http://www.w3.org/2009/01/ElementTraversal-java-binding.zip Art/Charles, I assume we need to have a vote for proposed errata, as with spec transitions. Unless you can see a reason not to, can you put this to a vote? Thanks, Cameron -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 04:52:09 UTC