- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:33:02 -0600
- To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
At 04:14 PM 7/6/2007 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote: >[...] >I am not aware of any 1.0 errata, as I was not present at that time to >track them. >If you want me to investigate in certain mailing lists, or how I can help, >let me know. Thanks for the offer, Thierry. I suspect that most discussion after REC (originally 1999, again 2001) happened outside of W3C. There wasn't a WG to tend to it, but rather Chris & I took the mostly completed work from the CGM Open Consortium, and fast-tracked it to REC in W3C. I'm going to put a little more thought into where, if anywhere, 1.0 errata may have gotten documented. Regards, -Lofton. > Henderson wrote: >>Status report and correction... >>So far, I have gotten zero response on this. Does no one know of any 1.0 >>errata? I.e., you haven't even marked up your paper copy with typo >>corrections, etc? >>Dave, would CGMO TC minutes contain any references to such stuff? Could >>you either check them, or divide 'em up and delegate to other TC/WG members? >>A correction to my earlier message is below embedded... >>At 07:31 AM 6/22/2007 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: >> >>>WebCGM WG -- >>> >>>I have started the 1.0 errata document: >>>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-10/webcgm10-errata-20070621.html >>> >>> >>>Please send (to me and WG list) any 1.0 errata you are aware of, whether >>>significant or trivial editorial. >>> >>>In skeleton form, I have included the first two definite errata, E01 and >>>E02. They need to be fleshed out considerably, so consider them mostly >>>as placeholders for now. >>> >>>I had a couple other ideas, E03 and E04. I think E03 probably should be >>>an erratum -- the 1.0 text about searching priorities, etc, should be >>>clarified that it is "for example" , as 2.0 did (as opposed to some >>>wooly sort of normative specification, as it could be read now.) >>> >>>Upon further thought I think E04 -- correction of designation sequence >>>tails for SF -- should *not* be an erratum, and should be dropped. >>>Looking at how we corrected the goof in 2.0 -- grandfathering the 1.0 >>>form of the tail while requiring the corrected form for 2.0 -- to go >>>back and correct it unambiguously in 1.0 would invalidate all presently >>>valid 1.0 content. Bad idea, IMO. >>The designation-sequence-tail glitch was actually about type S (graphical >>text), not type SF. It was the 1.0 one-byte bug in how the d-s-t is >>specified in the Character Set List element. >>-Lofton. >> > > > >
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 14:33:00 UTC