Re: update to errata document

At 05:07 PM 6/12/2007 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>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
>[...]
>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/

Oops, good catch.


>>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/

Good.


>>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 ?

I guess I'm asking:  should we change those dates or not?  My updates were 
purely editorial, not substantive.  So there is a good case that the old 
dates are the right ones.  (And there is some case for the other way as well.)

What do you think?  (Maybe the CVS date string near the top can indicate 
the uniqueness of this editorial version?)

-Lofton.

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 16:48:42 UTC