Re: attention -- WG approval of 1.0 strategy

Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 14:14 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Right, this is unfortunate and I hope that by talking with people at a
> Chairs meeting we can spread better practice.
> 
>>> 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 ?
> 
> Correct. "Normative" in this context means "Has gone through a W3C
> Process." The rest of the text has been subject to review and a decision
> by the Director; the goal is for the changes that fix errata to be
> through a similar process (though shorter).


My question to Chris was why does the SVG WG does not go through the 
process to have normative errata
> 
>  _ Ian
> 
>> 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 13:30:38 UTC