- From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:14:11 +0200
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Chris Lilley wrote: > On Friday, September 21, 2007, 4:42:16 PM, Ian wrote: > > IBJ> On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 14:35 +0000, Ian B. Jacobs wrote: >>>> I could not find anywhere in our W3C process or guidelines, mentioning >>>> this "non-normative" on the errata page. > > IBJ> Just to follow up on this point, in our Manual of style [1], > IBJ> see the section on "entries on an errata page". > > And the process document says: > > 7.6.1 Errata Management > > A correction is first "proposed" by the Working Group. A correction > becomes normative -- of equal status as the text in the published > Recommendation -- through one of the processes described below. An > errata page MAY include both proposed and normative corrections. The > Working Group MUST clearly identify which corrections are proposed > and which are normative. > http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr.html#errata Yes I read that in the process document. But it is largelly not done by WGs. > > This is why the SVG 1.1 errata have "proposed" and "draft" errata but > no "normative" errata. > http://www.w3.org/2003/01/REC-SVG11-20030114-errata Does that mean "proposed" are resolved by the WG and "draft" errata are not ? Why don't you have "normative" ? The Wg has chosen not to go through the process of making them normative ? We usually have the WG resolved errata on the public page and we track errata on anothet Group page. Once the Group errata page are resolved, they are moved to the public page. >
Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 12:14:05 UTC