Re: update to errata document

Lofton Henderson wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
> 
> Because of circumstances beyond our control, OASIS has only just finally 
> populated its final errata document URIs for the initial WebCGM 2.0 
> erratum.
> 
> Our REC 2.0 errata document is at:
> [0] http://www.w3.org/2006/WebCGM20-errata.html
> 
> (Hmmm... why "2006"?  Oh well, it is on the cover page of the REC 2.0 -- 
> I see no harm in leaving it as is.)


Because we must use dated URI. And the page was created in 2006.
Anyway the date here only reflect date of creation.
I agree that it is not very smart.


There was a bug in this REC 2.0 errata document:
The

This document records known errors in the document:
     http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/Group/2006/REC-webcgm20-20070115/


changed to
This document records known errors in the document:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070130/
 >


> 
> The only thing that changed on the OASIS side, since March, is that the 
> corrected DTD was moved to its final location, and OASIS's symlink of 
> the WebCGM 2.0 System Identifier (section 4.2.3) was redefined to point 
> at that final location.
> 
> That final location is reference [7] in our W3C errata document, and its 
> correct value is now:
> [7] http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/errata/os/webcgm20-20070509.dtd

OK
> 
> In addition to changing that, I have done some light editing on the 
> errata document, and placed the result at:
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-20/webcgm20-errata-20070611.html 


I have also changed to the correct WebCGM Rec URI (same fix as above) to
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070130/
> 
> 
> If you read the section "WG-approved resolution", you'll see the light 
> editing around the corrected URI [7], mostly adjusting status from 
> "proposed" to "approved".  You will also notice (elsewhere) that I 
> changed various dates to "June 2007", "June 11...", etc.  I'm not sure 
> if that was appropriate or not.  You can change them back, if the 
> original March dates should remain (the change was purely editorial ... 
> a new URI for the final DTD location ... I assume we don't need a new WG 
> resolution.)

um not sure why you want to change thoses dates (as this errata was 
already published in March.
Is that because of your updates ?

> 
> Finally, I noted and fixed some oddness in line 9, the Copyright and 
> Trademark symbols.

OK
> 
> Regards,
> -Lofton.
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 15:07:01 UTC