- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:31:32 -0600
- To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
WebCGM WG -- I have started the 1.0 errata document: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-10/webcgm10-errata-20070621.html Please send (to me and WG list) any 1.0 errata you are aware of, whether significant or trivial editorial. In skeleton form, I have included the first two definite errata, E01 and E02. They need to be fleshed out considerably, so consider them mostly as placeholders for now. I had a couple other ideas, E03 and E04. I think E03 probably should be an erratum -- the 1.0 text about searching priorities, etc, should be clarified that it is "for example" , as 2.0 did (as opposed to some wooly sort of normative specification, as it could be read now.) Upon further thought I think E04 -- correction of designation sequence tails for SF -- should *not* be an erratum, and should be dropped. Looking at how we corrected the goof in 2.0 -- grandfathering the 1.0 form of the tail while requiring the corrected form for 2.0 -- to go back and correct it unambiguously in 1.0 would invalidate all presently valid 1.0 content. Bad idea, IMO. -Lofton.
Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 13:36:33 UTC