Re: attention -- WG approval of 1.0 strategy

Hi Thierry,

Thanks for the process summary about how errata are made normative.  One 
reply, embedded...

At 09:38 AM 10/5/2007 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>[...]
>The process you are referring to is
>
>When a WG publishes Normative errata (Issuing a Call for Review of 
>Proposed Corrections),by the way a process *never* yet used at W3C by any WG.
>When publishing Normative errata, the Group commits to publish an edited 
>Recommendation within 6 months.(issuing a Call for Review of an Edited 
>Recommendation).
>
>For WebCGM10 errata, the WebCGM WG has decided, not to use this process 
>but to publish WG approved errata. (Note that this is what most W3C WGs 
>are doing. And most don't even mention that these are not Normative 
>errata) [1].
>Therefore the Group will not release a WebCGM10 third version.
>I discussed this Chris, and he agreed.
>
>
>For WebCGM20 errata, the WebCGM needs to decide if he wants to use the 
>same simple process or issue a Call for Review of an Edited 
>Recommendation) for WebCGM20 second release.

Now that the options are clear, let's discuss them at the 11-october 
telecon.  Also affecting our decision will be whether or not OASIS and W3C 
decide to pursue a small, fast WebCGM 2.1 (handful of additions to WebCGM 
2.0).  That topic will be on the agenda.

Regards,
-Lofton.



>[1]. for example see
>http://www.w3.org/2004/01/DOM-Level-3-errata
>http://www.w3.org/2004/03/voicexml20-errata.html
>http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/REC-CSS2-19980512-errata.html
>http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xmldsig-errata
>http://www.w3.org/2003/01/REC-SVG11-20030114-errata
>
>
>
>  Henderson wrote:
>>One comment about Ian's reply to Thierry (with whose assessment I agree)...
>>At 02:30 PM 9/19/2007 +0000, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>>>On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 16:21 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>>> > Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>
>>>
>>> > >
>>> > > I see above "to skip the hassle of republishing an entire new 
>>> WebCGM 1.0
>>> > > Third Release document" Please note that the process for approved
>>> > > corrections does require publication within 6 months. Can the group
>>> > > confirm here their intention to publish within 6 months after
>>> > > the end of the formal review period?
>>> >
>>> > The WebCGM WG does not plan to publish a third release of WebCGM 1.0.
>>>
>>>Then it is inappropriate to use the process that expects such a
>>>publication [1]:
>>>
>>>   "In order for the corrections to remain normative, the Working Group
>>>    MUST incorporate them into an edited Recommendation."
>>As I pointed out, a little earlier in the Process errata section the 
>>rationales were given, and we believe that they do nor pertain.  So 
>>should we spend the valuable resources anyway, to bring a very old 
>>document up to current pubrules and republish?
>>Regards,
>>-Lofton.
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 14:19:09 UTC