- From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:30:16 +0100
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
On 2025-03-21 13:48, Dan Brickley wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 12:45 Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com > <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote: > pá 21. 3. 2025 v 13:35 odesílatel Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca > <mailto:info@csarven.ca>> napsal: > What was outlined is that the proposed changes appear to fall under: > > https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#class-2 <https:// > www.w3.org/policies/process/#class-2> > > > Seems incredibly clear: > > "If there is any doubt or disagreement as to whether a change > functionally affects interpretation, that change does not fall into > this class." > > > So anyone in the world could swing the classification with a single > email, then? I'd certainly hope not, especially when the commenter may have misinterpreted the text. But, just to respond to the earlier comment: Changing the examples in a Primer does not affect the functional interpretation or requirements, either within the document itself or in the technical reports it references. The examples in the Primer are non-normative. The statement in class 2: >Examples of changes in this class include correcting non-normative examples which clearly conflict with normative requirements, clarifying informative use cases or other non-normative text, fixing typos or grammatical errors where the change does not change requirements. is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather a set of examples from which similar cases can be extrapolated. Errata, as per the Process, covers correction classes 1-3. Changing some of the examples certainly do not fall under correction classes 1, 4, or 5. Irrespective of whether the proposed changes fall under correction class 2 or 3, the bottom line remains the same. Errata / Editorial changes. -Sarven https://csarven.ca/#i
Received on Friday, 21 March 2025 13:30:23 UTC