- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:49:33 -0700
- To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>,info@cgmopen.org
Good catch. That's so old, I'm not sure who receives info@cgmopen.org. Probably me, if anyone. But regardless, it should be changed as you indicate. -Lofton. At 09:14 AM 8/23/2007 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote: >Lofton, > > >The WebCGM 1.0 Second Release >W3C Recommendation, 17 December 2001 [1] > >says >"Please report errors in this specification to the WebCGM document >editor.[info@cgmopen.org]" > >I am not sure who receives these mails at [info@cgmopen.org], but it >should be sent to a W3C archived list. > >We could had an errata here and say: > >"Please report errors in this document to the public mailing list ><public-webcgm@w3.org>. An archive is available at >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/. > > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-WebCGM-20011217/ > > > > Henderson wrote: >> >>I put a fair amount of work into it, and hopefully it's getting in decent >>shape for discussion purposes... >>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-10/WebCGM10-errata-20070621.html >> >>E04 and E05 are a bit rough yet, but even those should have enough detail >>to understand the basic issue and proposal. >>Some issues have surfaced. Have a look at E02, for example -- it is more >>complicated than it originally appeared. Note also that I've started to >>raise questions (e.g., in E01) that are process related, and what we have >>to do to put it in process-acceptable form. >>(Proper process alignment and document format is the last step, after we >>sort out the substance of the errata, but it doesn't hurt to start >>looking at it now. >>Regards, >>-Lofton. >> >> >> >> > > > >
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 13:49:37 UTC