Re: attention -- WG approval of 1.0 strategy

WebCGM WG --

Ian's comment caught my attention:

>Right. There is no requirement to incorporate them normatively. But then
>they are not normative. It's up to the community to decide what it needs
>in the name of interoperability and usability of documents.

Given the entire context around this correction-set for 1.0, and given our 
expectations for future 1.0 usage (very low), it might suffice for us to 
leave them non-normative.

To be clear, the new 1.0 errata document would replace the current (empty) 
errata document at the errata link [1] in the present 1.0 spec header.  And 
each erratum documents that the WebCGM WG approved it as correct and 
appropriate ("...telecon of YYYY-MM-DD").  But they would not have the 
formal W3C "normative" status.

I think that might be enough, if going normative forces us to republish.

Thoughts?

-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM-20011217-errata


At 10:45 AM 9/19/2007 -0500, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>Comments inline.
>
>On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 17:28 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
> > Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 16:21 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
> > >> Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 15:19 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
> > >>>> On Monday, September 10, 2007, 5:51:47 PM, Lofton wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> LH> To summarize the below-linked minutes, our recommended 
> strategy is to get
> > >>>> LH> 4-week W3C/public review and publish the approved 1.0 errata 
> document, but
> > >>>> LH> to skip the hassle of republishing an entire new WebCGM 1.0 
> Third Release
> > >>>> LH> document (Edited Recommendation).
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Today's minutes:
> > >>>>> 
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/Minutes/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html
> > >>>> I heard that the 'approved errata' option was being removed due to 
> not being used. i have copied Ian Jacobs for an authoritative statement 
> on whether that can still be used or not.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Ian, this is a publicly archived list.
> > >>> The option still exists; we have not yet modified the Process Document.
> > >>> We plan to propose to the AC to remove that option (as it has not been
> > >>> used).
> > >> So how should we process here ?
> > >>
> > >> We have currently a draft errata page approved by the WebCGM WG.
> > >> 
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-10/WebCGM10-errata-20070621
> > >>
> > >> We should have a 4-week W3C/public review ?
> > >> How is such reviewed organized, What is the prcess ? (I have never done
> > >> this for SMIL). To which Mailing list this review request should be 
> sent ?
> > >
> > > We have not done this before, so I would need to look into this.
> >
> > As you write and as I am aware, most WG do not go through this errata
> > review (I could not find any errata review process for it). I request
> > that the WebCGM does not go into this review and publishes its errata at
> > final destination.
>
>No other groups have done this. Groups that want to make corrections
>normative have republished.
>
> >
> > >
> > >> Once it is reviewed we should publish it at its final destination
> > >> http://www.w3.org/2007/WebCGM10-errata.html
> > >>
> > >> Can we just skip the 4-week W3C/public review as most of the W3C Groups
> > >> seem to proceed and publish it at its final destination
> > >> http://www.w3.org/2007/WebCGM10-errata.html
> > >
> > > If you skip the review, then you're not using the process to make
> > > then normative.
> >
> > How do other groups publish their errata ?
>
>On errata pages, like you.
>
> > >
> > >>> 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 a reminder, the purpose of this piece of process was only to postpone
> > > publication, not eliminate the need for it.
> >
> >
> > SMIL 1.0 has an errata page and there was no republication as edited
> > Recommendation for years and I am sure there are a lot of W3C documents
> > in the same case.
>
>Right. There is no requirement to incorporate them normatively. But then
>they are not normative. It's up to the community to decide what it needs
>in the name of interoperability and usability of documents.
>
>I have no advice on whether to make the corrections normative or not; I
>would need to look more closely at your situation and hear more from
>you about it. But if you choose to make them normative, I recommend the
>shorter path of requesting publication of a revised Edition; that's a
>little harder on the group but a lot easier on the (much larger)
>community.
>
>  _ Ian
>
>--
>Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
>Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:23:19 UTC