Re: update to errata document

Lofton,

Your new version is very good.

just one issue :

what is the meaning of
"Class: Class 2". ?



I have also corrected another bug ;-)
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-20/webcgm20-errata-20070611.html 


   <dt>This version:</dt>
     <dd><a 
href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/REC-SMIL21-20051010-errata.html">http://www.w3.org/2006/WebCGM20-errata.html</a></dd>


to

   <dt>This version:</dt>
     <dd><a 
href="http://www.w3.org/2006/WebCGM20-errata.html">http://www.w3.org/2006/WebCGM20-errata.html</a></dd>


If there are no objection from the Group to these minor updates, by end 
of this week, I will move this errata page to its final destination
http://www.w3.org/2006/WebCGM20-errata.html


Thierry.

  Henderson wrote:
> 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 Wednesday, 13 June 2007 07:18:13 UTC