- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:00:01 +0200
- To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Cc: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
On Monday, September 24, 2007, 2:14:11 PM, Thierry wrote: TM> Chris Lilley wrote: >> 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 TM> Does that mean "proposed" are resolved by the WG and "draft" errata are TM> not ? Yes. TM> Why don't you have "normative" ? Because we have not gone through the procedure to make them normative; and when I asked about that, I heard it was at risk for being dropped from the process doc as no-one had used the procedure to date. TM> The Wg has chosen not to go through the TM> process of making them normative ? We wanted to, but it seems we will just publish a second edition instead. TM> We usually have the WG resolved errata on the public page and we track TM> errata on anothet Group page. Once the Group errata page are resolved, TM> they are moved to the public page. Yes, that works too. SVG WG is Member-only, so this was a way for us to share ewrratta-in-progress and get feedback (eg from the people who had reported the defect). -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 18:00:10 UTC