Re: update to errata document

At 09:18 AM 6/13/2007 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>[...]
>Your new version is very good.
>
>just one issue :
>
>what is the meaning of
>"Class: Class 2". ?

That is the classification of the erratum according to the way they are 
presented and rated in the Process Document:
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#correction-classes

(We had some considerable discussion and a straw poll about that, as I 
recall, back in Feb-March.)

>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>

Oops!  SMIL?  I guess I know from whence you got your template.  ;)



>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

Good plan, thanks.

Regards,
-Lofton.


>  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 14:07:51 UTC