- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:02:54 -0600
- To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
At 06:58 PM 6/12/2007 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote: >Lofton Henderson wrote: >>>[...] >>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. > >There are no W3C guidelines for this kind of issue. >I am OK for both kind of dates. >Do what you think is best. Have a look at just-updated version, http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-20/webcgm20-errata-20070611.html and let me know what you think. Notice that I kept "Known errors as of June 2007". I changed "Date of this entry" back to March, that being the original date that the erratum appeared in W3C, and added an annotation about "latest editorial ... June..." This tells me all of the chronological details that I might want to know. -Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 23:03:07 UTC